The International Cricket Thread

[paul_e]

To take a step back, because otherwise I'm going to end up arguing with a bunch of you all day, my point is that how we now play is all about risk and reward. As a group I believe the decision was made that the reward of showing teams we won't be controlled by short stuff was worth the risk of losing some cheap wickets.

With hindsight it's easy to say we were wrong but if we'd just ducked and dodged and not taken it on we'd have just guaranteed that every single test match going forward would've seen us facing fuckloads of short stuff. That's what will happen now anyway but by trying to control it and keep playing our game we gave ourselves a chance of making teams be more cautious about it. For that reason I don't think it was a mistake, even if it might cost us this match. That said if we do the same every time we play short stuff and we see the same outcome regularly then it will be fair to offer the sort of criticism you've made today.

As I said yesterday I see it as similar to Villa changing tactic and passing the ball around in defence a lot more. We saw it fail and saw lots of the same sort of criticism but in the long run it has proven to be the right thing for us to do.

[taylorsworkrate]

"Bazball" has never been about recklessly slogging though. Its been about being positive, putting pressure onto the bowlers but doing so in a way where the odds are in your favour. There is no way on earth that Englands approach to the short ball has been with the odds in their favour. It was a very very basic trap Australia set and I highly doubt they even thought it had a chance of working. They must be pissing themselves laughing at lunch now.

I will actually say that whilst a poor shot, I dont think that Brook's dismissal was remotely as bad as Root, Duckett's or Popes. At least he was trying to manoeuvre the ball into an area of the field where the odds were more in his favour of being successful. The other 3, not so much Pope as he was trying to clear the rope, played very high risk shots where the potential reward was minimal.

[German James]

It's not "all or nothing" though, Paul! England can generally follow a policy of playing on the front-foot, aggressively going for singles and twos, attacking the bowling etc. but that doesn't mean that they have to follow that policy so slavishly that they completely ignore the opposition adapting to their style of play and changing their attack accordingly.

[TonyD]

I don’t know. 
You nip into the kitchen to make a cuppa,  come back and we’ve lost 6 wickets. 

[paul_e]

It's not "all or nothing" though, Paul! England can generally follow a policy of playing on the front-foot, aggressively going for singles and twos, attacking the bowling etc. but that doesn't mean that they have to follow that policy so slavishly that they completely ignore the opposition adapting to their style of play and changing their attack accordingly.

I'm not the one saying it is though, it's not me saying that we've given the game away and that we should've abandoned our style at the first sign of some short deliveries. I agree we didn't handle things as well as we should've but, much like the first test, I think execution rather than attitude was the problem.

[DB]

They don't value their wicket. Play the game in front of you not just give in to goading or arrogance that they must play 1 style of play, absolutely idiotic. Aussies are laughing. If you're gonna try and bounce it,then just duck, they will get tired. Prob 8 of our innings were awful shots.

[taylorsworkrate]

To take a step back, because otherwise I'm going to end up arguing with a bunch of you all day, my point is that how we now play is all about risk and reward. As a group I believe the decision was made that the reward of showing teams we won't be controlled by short stuff was worth the risk of losing some cheap wickets.

With hindsight it's easy to say we were wrong but if we'd just ducked and dodged and not taken it on we'd have just guaranteed that every single test match going forward would've seen us facing fuckloads of short stuff. That's what will happen now anyway but by trying to control it and keep playing our game we gave ourselves a chance of making teams be more cautious about it. For that reason I don't think it was a mistake, even if it might cost us this match. That said if we do the same every time we play short stuff and we see the same outcome regularly then it will be fair to offer the sort of criticism you've made today.

As I said yesterday I see it as similar to Villa changing tactic and passing the ball around in defence a lot more. We saw it fail and saw lots of the same sort of criticism but in the long run it has proven to be the right thing for us to do.

I think you may be right on this point, but if that is the case then I dont think its acceptable of an England team to think that throwing away an ashes test match and effectively an ashes series in order to make a point is ok. If the situation were reversed yesterday, would Australia have been so blaise about it?

[Drummond]

It's not "all or nothing" though, Paul! England can generally follow a policy of playing on the front-foot, aggressively going for singles and twos, attacking the bowling etc. but that doesn't mean that they have to follow that policy so slavishly that they completely ignore the opposition adapting to their style of play and changing their attack accordingly.

I'm not the one saying it is though, it's not me saying that we've given the game away and that we should've abandoned our style at the first sign of some short deliveries. I agree we didn't handle things as well as we should've but, much like the first test, I think execution rather than attitude was the problem.

It's attitude that leads to execution. Slovenly or arrogant attitude leads to a less than controlled execution. We didn't need to go after everything, and that's how it seemed we were playing. Brainless.

By all means go after the short stuff, but if the field is set well for it, try something different.

[paul_e]

To take a step back, because otherwise I'm going to end up arguing with a bunch of you all day, my point is that how we now play is all about risk and reward. As a group I believe the decision was made that the reward of showing teams we won't be controlled by short stuff was worth the risk of losing some cheap wickets.

With hindsight it's easy to say we were wrong but if we'd just ducked and dodged and not taken it on we'd have just guaranteed that every single test match going forward would've seen us facing fuckloads of short stuff. That's what will happen now anyway but by trying to control it and keep playing our game we gave ourselves a chance of making teams be more cautious about it. For that reason I don't think it was a mistake, even if it might cost us this match. That said if we do the same every time we play short stuff and we see the same outcome regularly then it will be fair to offer the sort of criticism you've made today.

As I said yesterday I see it as similar to Villa changing tactic and passing the ball around in defence a lot more. We saw it fail and saw lots of the same sort of criticism but in the long run it has proven to be the right thing for us to do.

I think you may be right on this point, but if that is the case then I dont think its acceptable of an England team to think that throwing away an ashes test match and effectively an ashes series in order to make a point is ok. If the situation were reversed yesterday, would Australia have been so blaise about it?

but again with the bold bit you're making the assumption that if we'd just ducked for a few overs we'd still be batting and looking at a first innings lead and I don't think there's any reason to assume that. I keep going back to the Stokes wicket but, given the conditions this morning, that was about as standard a Lords wicket as we'll see all match. If we'd gone in last night at 230 but with 1-2 more wickets in hand I just don't think anyone can be so sure that we'd have ended up with a significantly better score than we got. That's why I just think it's over-simplifying things to just claim that we'd have been fine if we'd just been passive for the last hour yesterday.

[Risso]

With hindsight it's easy to say we were wrong but if we'd just ducked and dodged and not taken it on we'd have just guaranteed that every single test match going forward would've seen us facing fuckloads of short stuff. That's what will happen now anyway but by trying to control it and keep playing our game we gave ourselves a chance of making teams be more cautious about it. For that reason I don't think it was a mistake, even if it might cost us this match. That said if we do the same every time we play short stuff and we see the same outcome regularly then it will be fair to offer the sort of criticism you've made today.

They went after us with short stuff, we played it terribly and they wiped out our top order. It was a huge success as far as they were concerned. Had we played it better then they'd have perhaps been a bit more circumspect in future games.

[PaulWinch again]

Again there is a whole lot between “passive” and slogging it directly into a telegraphed plan.

[PaulWinch again]

Good news is we’re continuing to miss our chances as well.

[taylorsworkrate]

To take a step back, because otherwise I'm going to end up arguing with a bunch of you all day, my point is that how we now play is all about risk and reward. As a group I believe the decision was made that the reward of showing teams we won't be controlled by short stuff was worth the risk of losing some cheap wickets.

With hindsight it's easy to say we were wrong but if we'd just ducked and dodged and not taken it on we'd have just guaranteed that every single test match going forward would've seen us facing fuckloads of short stuff. That's what will happen now anyway but by trying to control it and keep playing our game we gave ourselves a chance of making teams be more cautious about it. For that reason I don't think it was a mistake, even if it might cost us this match. That said if we do the same every time we play short stuff and we see the same outcome regularly then it will be fair to offer the sort of criticism you've made today.

As I said yesterday I see it as similar to Villa changing tactic and passing the ball around in defence a lot more. We saw it fail and saw lots of the same sort of criticism but in the long run it has proven to be the right thing for us to do.

I think you may be right on this point, but if that is the case then I dont think its acceptable of an England team to think that throwing away an ashes test match and effectively an ashes series in order to make a point is ok. If the situation were reversed yesterday, would Australia have been so blaise about it?

but again with the bold bit you're making the assumption that if we'd just ducked for a few overs we'd still be batting and looking at a first innings lead and I don't think there's any reason to assume that. I keep going back to the Stokes wicket but, given the conditions this morning, that was about as standard a Lords wicket as we'll see all match. If we'd gone in last night at 230 but with 1-2 more wickets in hand I just don't think anyone can be so sure that we'd have ended up with a significantly better score than we got. That's why I just think it's over-simplifying things to just claim that we'd have been fine if we'd just been passive for the last hour yesterday.

Lyon going off injured was an absolutely massive moment. We were 190/1 on a pitch doing nothing under the sun. Australia were rattled. Them going to that short ball theory was out of desperation rather than any expectation. What would have been their next tactic if we'd have blunted that one? They couldn't have gone back to Lyon and England should have realised that.

Of course you can't be certain of how things will go, but we played in a manner where the odds were firmly against being successful, given the way the field was set. I'm not saying that we should have left everything, but playing an attacking shot at every short ball where the risk to reward ratio was well in the fielding teams favour is not good cricket.

We could, and should have ended the day at 250/1 or 250/2 and Australia come back today more demoralised knowing their world class spinner is unavailable and they haven't found a tactic that works.

[paul_e]

Again there is a whole lot between “passive” and slogging it directly into a telegraphed plan.

and that only really applies to Root and Duckett. Pope just didn't strike the ball cleanly and Brook spliced it.

Either way I'm much more worried by what we're doing with the ball/in the field, we're in very good bowling conditions again right now and we're not really doing anything with them. Tongue looks a threat and Broad has been ok, Robinson and Jimmy have bowled poorly again.

[taylorsworkrate]

Good news is we’re continuing to miss our chances as well.

We've got ideal bowling conditions once again and not taking advantage once again. This has been a very poor performance in this test considering how we've had great conditions to both bowl and bat in