The International Cricket Thread

[Monty]

A short story in 3 names.

There's no fucking way those are real. Wodehouse would've rejected them as insufficiently true to life.

[LeeB]

I agree Paul, and pre-Bazball this would have ended up an innings defeat. We've just got to select the time to 'go' a bit more effectively, and I actually feel we lost this test in the stupid middle order collapse in the first innings, if we'd have kept our heads then we we're on course to possibly take a first innings lead.

This is not a particularly great Aussie side in my book and I don't think they react well under pressure. Losing Lyon is huge for them, the next test is going to be very interesting.

[Monty]

Two strange misfiring spells have cost us two tests IMO: persisting with the old ball after the eighth wicket in the second innings at Edgebaston, and persisting with the hooking-the-bouncer plan when it was plainly not working. Not the declaration, not electing to bowl, those have justifications and can't really be called 'errors' therefore, I think. But those two decisions were low-percentage high-risk plans which failed utterly. Sadly.

[PeterWithe]

A short story in 3 names.

There's no fucking way those are real. Wodehouse would've rejected them as insufficiently true to life.

All a bit rum, what?

[paul_e]

Two strange misfiring spells have cost us two tests IMO: persisting with the old ball after the eighth wicket in the second innings at Edgebaston, and persisting with the hooking-the-bouncer plan when it was plainly not working. Not the declaration, not electing to bowl, those have justifications and can't really be called 'errors' therefore, I think. But those two decisions were low-percentage high-risk plans which failed utterly. Sadly.

For me if you win the toss and choose to bowl it's a mistake if the opposition achieve a 'par' score or better. At Lords 400+ is a good first innings score that will generally leave you in control of the match, and that's how it turned out.

It's not a big mistake but I reckon when we made that decision we were hoping for them to get no more than 350. Even then I don't think the decision is at fault but rather our execution in the field. We decided to bowl because the conditions looked good for bowling and the forecast for day 2 looked good but then we did very little to take advantage of those conditions, for me that set the tone of the match.

I think it's easy to forget that on Wednesday evening we were all annoyed at the bowlers and some on here were talking about an innings defeat. We were behind for the rest of the game and, bazball or not, England regularly collapse in those circumstances. Again in my view bazball got us into a position where it looked like we might catch them in the first innings and then also led to some of the wickets we lost but I don't think it's as simple as "if we didn't play the hook shot we'd have won". Again look at the batting conditions, day 3 was much better for the bowlers and it proved decisive as we collapsed. I just don't think having less runs but more wickets at the end of day 2 would've had a significant impact on the match.

[olaftab]

A short story in 3 names.

There's no fucking way those are real. Wodehouse would've rejected them as insufficiently true to life.

I always thought they were all know as Billy Bunters. Everyday is a learning day.
I wonder if Bart, Humphs and Quinnos will ever bother dirtying their square bottoms by sitting in those long room chairs again?

[Risso]

A short story in 3 names.

There's no fucking way those are real. Wodehouse would've rejected them as insufficiently true to life.

Of course they're made up, people haven't actually fallen for that have they?

[olaftab]

By the way has anyone on here either applied to be on the waiting list or ever been close to becoming an MCC member?

[Monty]

Two strange misfiring spells have cost us two tests IMO: persisting with the old ball after the eighth wicket in the second innings at Edgebaston, and persisting with the hooking-the-bouncer plan when it was plainly not working. Not the declaration, not electing to bowl, those have justifications and can't really be called 'errors' therefore, I think. But those two decisions were low-percentage high-risk plans which failed utterly. Sadly.

For me if you win the toss and choose to bowl it's a mistake if the opposition achieve a 'par' score or better. At Lords 400+ is a good first innings score that will generally leave you in control of the match, and that's how it turned out.

It's not a big mistake but I reckon when we made that decision we were hoping for them to get no more than 350. Even then I don't think the decision is at fault but rather our execution in the field. We decided to bowl because the conditions looked good for bowling and the forecast for day 2 looked good but then we did very little to take advantage of those conditions, for me that set the tone of the match.

I think it's easy to forget that on Wednesday evening we were all annoyed at the bowlers and some on here were talking about an innings defeat. We were behind for the rest of the game and, bazball or not, England regularly collapse in those circumstances. Again in my view bazball got us into a position where it looked like we might catch them in the first innings and then also led to some of the wickets we lost but I don't think it's as simple as "if we didn't play the hook shot we'd have won". Again look at the batting conditions, day 3 was much better for the bowlers and it proved decisive as we collapsed. I just don't think having less runs but more wickets at the end of day 2 would've had a significant impact on the match.

The question is, was it a captaincy, i.e. strategic, mistake? I would say not, as by and large the bowlers performed poorly on the day. You could say there were selection errors, but given the biggest underperformer was undroppable Jimmy that would seem a bit harsh. There's not a lot a captain can do if his bowlers don't show up.

This is why the throwing-the-wickets-away strategy is identifiable as the downfall, as it was a deliberate tactic which failed horribly - especially considering that our long tail made those top-order wickets all the more precious (you'd think you'd adapt your strategy a little bit if you know you've picked a pretty weak 8-11). It was that old definition of insanity, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. To throw one wicket away hooking looks unfortunate; four looks like fecking madness.

(Which isn't to relitigate it as we do disagree on this point, but I don't think the dichotomy you present at the end is right - if you just duck the bouncers and stay patient you force them to change their lengths and fields, and more scoring opportunities open up.)

[aev]

By the way has anyone on here either applied to be on the waiting list or ever been close to becoming an MCC member?

I am a member, but most times I go I don't bother sitting in the pavilion.

I was there on Wednesday and Thursday and was the only one in the members queue in shorts and trainers.

[Monty]

A short story in 3 names.

There's no fucking way those are real. Wodehouse would've rejected them as insufficiently true to life.

Of course they're made up, people haven't actually fallen for that have they?

I guess you'd hope not. I imagine some have though.

[Jon Crofts]

It’s made up. No names are mentioned in the MCC statement other than Guy Lavender.

[Monty]

It’s made up. No names are mentioned in the MCC statement other than Guy Lavender.

And that really is good enough.

[PaulWinch again]

Sorry Paul all entitled to our opinions but I firmly believe that it’s our approach on the second afternoon that lost us the game. They didn’t read the room and took a really poor approach to risk vs reward. In the last year they got that right. Sometimes going after the short ball can be right - Bairstow last year at Trent Bridge, circumstances and ground dimensions meant it was an intelligent call. This time it wasn’t, ground dimensions and match situation were just wrong.

[Risso]

You can admire the overall approach that the England team are embracing, while still being of the opinion that there's room for improvement, especially around decision making.