The International Cricket Thread

[PaulWinch again]

Nah the aggressive brand of cricket is fine, but once everyone is on the boundary you’ve kind of achieved your aim. The Aussies were desperate, we could have continued to be aggressive and done it in a different way. Get lots of ones and twos and then they’ll bring the field in and then start hitting the boundaries.

You can support the aggressive approach, but acknowledge when they’ve got it wrong. It’s not negative, it’s just realistic. I think Stokes’ approach probably shows he knew that.

That's the thing.   We had opportunities at Edgbaston, but didn't take them and lost.  There was a big chance today with Lyon off the field and their fielders on the boundary to grind their seamers down.  Like at Edgbaston though, we gave wickets away and let them off the hook.  We've got a long tail in this game so really needed the top order to fire. 

Yep and I think it’s a case of players getting a bit confused. There comes a time where attack/aggression can take a different form - which was continuing to demoralise Australia. They then keep banging it in and knacker themselves and then when they realise it won’t work they bring the field in and you smash it into the gaps. Instead we played into their hands and gave them what they wanted.

And as I say, the key indicator is Stokes. Look at how he played - he got it and was showing his team.

Overall really good day for England, but acknowledging 45 mins odd was just dumb doesn’t mean you’re being negative, it’s just realistic.

Hopefully we’ll have a really good couple of sessions tomorrow and get a good lead.

[simboy]

If you had said yesterday morning when Australia were 339-5 with Smith on 85 that England at the close would be 138 behind with six wickets left and the Aussies relying on part time spin bowling would you be happy? Probably.

If England had been 150-4 at close would we be happy? I doubt it

As said above Bazball is about getting time for the bowlers into the game. Australia will be batting again by mid afternoon. They will either have very small lead or be about level.

My view is Bazball is a bit like the culture shock we got when we played the ball around at the back. The goal against Brighton away sent many into apoplexy. More so just signing a left back. We have to trust the process

[PaulWinch again]

Yes but that assumes “Bazball” is something binary. They played really well for all of yesterday, with the exception of 45 mins when they lost their heads.

As I’ve said just look at Stokes’ approach, he saw what the situation required. It’s not negative or going away from Bazball, it’s working out how to best dominate.

It’s ok to be supportive of an approach, which I absolutely am, but also acknowledge when mistakes are made.

[simboy]

It’s all or nothing - but you are right it does not mean that the batsman have to smash every ball(they don’t, even Duckett left a couple!) , just as Martinez can lump it up occasionally. Stokes demonstrated that it was time to take the foot off the gas and bat properly (I’m not so sure about Brookes!)

However, clearly the approach is that the top order (in particular) go hard if they can, they did. I was fuming with both Duckett and Root but having thought about it I got why. I may disagree with the personnel (Crawley and Robinson currently) but I think the philosophy is right.

[PaulWinch again]

In a philosophical sense it’s all or nothing, but in the underlying application there is flexibility. Again, Stokes’ approach shows that. Not falling into the trap set by opposition, which was their last resort, and beating them into the dirt is still pretty front footed.

Best illustration of why I think the minds were scrambled is Duckett’s defence of the approach. He said something along the lines if they put a load of slips in we wouldn’t stop driving. That makes sense, but when you’re driving you’re not purposely trying to edge it. In this case we were deliberately hitting it in the air to where they’d put fielders.

[Beard82]

I think the players are confused by it to some extent - it’s a mantra they feel they have to live and die by.  Aggressive and positive is one thing - like the declaration - it was a calculated risk that didn’t pay off.  But I get it

I’m sure I read somewhere that root didn’t know quite how it fitted into this new setup.  And it kind of feels like that at times in the middle - the players feel like they don’t have a choice.

What root did yesterday was stupid - he’s in good Nick and our best batsman - as a senior member of the team surely he should have done what stokes did. 

Surely the philosophy isn’t to lose by an innings because we would rather try and hit the skin off the ball than play the situation with some common sense

[PaulWinch again]

Yeah it’s a nonsense and also admitting when they get it a bit wrong is fine and not a weakness. Learning, adapting, and improving is a positive thing to do.

[Villan For Life]

Lyon arrived at the ground on crutches this morning, still no official announcement about his participation in this match or the rest of the series.

[taylorsworkrate]

Lyon arrived at the ground on crutches this morning, still no official announcement about his participation in this match or the rest of the series.

Australia probably cannot believe their luck as to how England have once again thrown away such a strong position. They would have been fearing the worst when Lyon went off injured, but our braindead batsmen have done all the work for them

[Monty]

Oh great.

[taylorsworkrate]

Sod all to come after these two. Got to somehow get their lead under 50 but can't see it the way we are playing

[paul_e]

Yeah it’s a nonsense and also admitting when they get it a bit wrong is fine and not a weakness. Learning, adapting, and improving is a positive thing to do.

Again I think you're missing the point and you need to stop focusing on specifics. We have all seen England teams play it safe and be 4 wickets down for 100-150 runs because they been done by a few good deliveries or because the opposition build some scoreboard pressure. How we've played in the last couple of years has been to accept that you're generally going to lose wickets regardless of how you bat so we're choosing to go for big shots and flip that scoreboard pressure.

Yes we can have periods where we take a bit of step back but that decision is on the batter, not the team.

And right no cue there's an example, that wasn't a risky shot from Stokes, he's just been done by a good delivery and now he's gone having taken a lot of time out of the game for very little impact on the scoreboard. I'm not saying he's wrong to do what he did but if he'd been out for 35-40 last night trying to smash things around the net result would be us having 20 more runs on the board.

[Monty]

Playing positively is all fine and well but repeatedly out hooking is just silly. I'm all for Bazball, it's revolutionised our cricket, but even in Bazball there are balances to be struck.

[Villan For Life]

Starc’s record against Stokes is very good he’s got him out seven times in Ashes cricket

[paul_e]

I don't disagree but the attitude that leads to us playing those hook shots is the same one that means we're running at 4.5 an over and have forced them to change their approach to bowling at us.

I understand the frustration and I get why with hindsight people think it's too aggressive but Starc has just shown that playing safer doesn't stop you being done by a good delivery so the idea that we'd be in a better position if we were a bit more circumspect just doesn't ring true to me.

By taking on the short stuff we kept them playing it and we kept scoring. Stokes wasn't playing the short stuff so they changed how they bowled to him, and got him out anyway.

I don't think any of our wickets yesterday were down to genuinely poor decisions by the batsmen, instead they were just poor execution and good deliveries. Nothing we do will remove those 2 things from the game so bazball is all about finding ways to control the game until they happen.