[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 1st Test, Birmingham, June 16 - 20, 2023

[Bold Seagull]

Wood bowled well in Australia, even if he didn't always get just reward for it. Took a wicket in every innings (except the one where he only bowled one ball) and was our top wicket taker.
I still think, if everybody is fit and bowling well, that Anderson, Wood and Robinson is our best attack.

You would leave Broad out? He just took 6 wickets in the match compared to Jimmy's 1 and Robinson's 5.

 

[BN41Albion]

You could easily argue that with 440 on the board or whatever, Aussies would have been even more negative and we wouldnt have seen a thrilling end, or England ended up declaring low in the second innings to try to force a result and we end up the same.

That is exactly Stokes' argument. He wants exciting cricket and a win or bust attitude. So like it or not, our tactics won't be changing anytime soon.

Personally, I'm all for it. Yesterday was a fantastic ending to a thrilling test match. Much better than it fizzing out in a draw imo.

 

[timbha]

That is exactly Stokes' argument. He wants exciting cricket and a win or bust attitude. So like it or not, our tactics won't be changing anytime soon.

Personally, I'm all for it. Yesterday was a fantastic ending to a thrilling test match. Much better than it fizzing out in a draw imo.

Do you want to win the Ashes?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Do you want to win the Ashes?

Remind me when we last won it and what tactics we'd employed in the meantime?

I can expand, 2015.

Since then in the Ashes (not including this series) we are P15 W2 D3 L10

So anyone thinking we need to revert to something England was previously doing as if it was working in order to win the Ashes may need to think again...

 

[Audax]

The biggest farce is The Hundred itself. Or The Humbug as I call it. I may be a grumpy old man, but I think a lot of nippers are on my side with that one. I'll watch any cricket me, but I refuse to watch that utter tripe. I'll leave it to people whose attention span makes a goldfish look obsessive.

I've not watched any of The Hundred. The branding is obnoxious (who picked those colour combos?!), and for me it's answering a question that Twenty20 had already solved well enough - and The Hundred is doing it in a more complicated way, which just makes it even more wrong.

In the end I would say that the missed stumpings, dropped catches and some very poor stumping dismissals cost us more than the declaration. Just a few too many errors from England and Australia commendably held their nerve and struck back at vital moments in the test when England looked to be really asserting themselves. A terrific game, the Aussies deserved the win but I think I have seen enough from this England side to encourage me for the rest of the series.

I agree. I thought the declaration was very risky, but came with a very high reward if it had paid off. Nip out Khawaja in those overs before the end of day 1 and it's a very different game. Just because it didn't work this time shouldn't stop Stokes trying something similar again in future IMO. I also agree that what cost England most in this match wasn't the declaration. It was all the missed opportunities. Can forgive Root the dropped caught and bowled chances, but Bairstow's misses (in both innings) cannot be forgiven.

For me, this result started with selection. Bairstow in ahead of Foakes was wrong. And, I have to say, I think the decisions on bowlers was wrong as well: Stokes is carrying a niggle, Anderson and Robinson both coming back from niggles, and Moeen pulled out of Test retirement... That's 4 out of 5 carrying big question marks over their ability to give 100% across a 5 day match, and I think it showed.

 

[amexer]

Anderson - off form. He’s 40 ffs
Moeen - not match fitcommitee
Bairstow - missed stumping/catches
Root - missed catches and expensive at critical time
Stokes - hobbling. Little threat

No real pace, fielding errors, 3 stumpings (!).

Despite Bazball I thought we were quite negative at the end allowing the Aussies singles, twos and threes whilst having few fielders in close catching positions.

All this against the Aussies and we wonder why we lost. Seems we’d rather lose exciting matches than win the Ashes.

Agree. With 20 plus needed to many fielders on boundary and easy to pick up singles. Problem then instead of Stokes making attacking decisions it became captaining by committee.

 

[Eeyore]

Wood bowled well in Australia, even if he didn't always get just reward for it. Took a wicket in every innings (except the one where he only bowled one ball) and was our top wicket taker.
I still think, if everybody is fit and bowling well, that Anderson, Wood and Robinson is our best attack.

Different schools of thought, but Broad is a shoo in for me in a home Ashes series. he has over 100 wickets at Lords, Wood's record there is not great (and he has played a lot of Tests there). It's a shame Woakes isn't being considered as he has the place on a string. I think the bowling is okay, except for the spinner. But we've been saying that since forever outside the Swann years. Dawson would be an option as he can bat too.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

You would leave Broad out? He just took 6 wickets in the match compared to Jimmy's 1 and Robinson's 5.

Well at this point, clearly it sounds insane .

I realised my reply was quite long so I'l summarise what's below as:
No, that's not quite what I'm getting at.

If it's a pitch with a decent amount of grass or cracking that helps the seamers, there's not really an issue.
But if it's flat, at some point you end up bowling at two good, set batters and will want to shake things up a bit.
So we want a 90mph bowler in there. We also want a spinner for variety and to get through some overs. Unless we let Root do that job (which isn't ideal either) we only have three seamer slots.
I'm not saying I would drop anybody for the next test, because I don't think the bowlers were the problem. But I don't think all three of the seamers being highly skilled 80mph-ish bowlers is the best balance and I think Anderson and Robinson are better than Broad more often than not.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Different schools of thought, but Broad is a shoo in for me in a home Ashes series. he has over 100 wickets at Lords, Wood's record there is not great (and he has played a lot of Tests there). It's a shame Woakes isn't being considered as he has the place on a string. I think the bowling is okay, except for the spinner. But we've been saying that since forever outside the Swann years. Dawson would be an option as he can bat too.

England's record at home when they pick my preferred seamer line up is appalling.
Although, to be fair, I think there were wider issues than the seam attack in those matches.
I'd play the same seamers unless the pitch looks totally flat, if we'd taken our chances we'd be saying how well they bowled on a pitch offering little to nothing in lateral movement. And Anderson should bowl better for having got some overs under his belt.

 

[brightn'ove]

That is exactly Stokes' argument. He wants exciting cricket and a win or bust attitude. So like it or not, our tactics won't be changing anytime soon.

Personally, I'm all for it. Yesterday was a fantastic ending to a thrilling test match. Much better than it fizzing out in a draw imo.

And we've been losing playing more defensive cricket anyway so why not.

As a fan of a club with RDZ as manager, i'm enjoying my two favourite sports following the same high risk high reward strategies. It's f***ing exciting.

 

[timbha]

As a fan of a club with RDZ as manager, i'm enjoying my two favourite sports following the same high risk high reward strategies. It's f***ing exciting.

I get this but can’t help being really disappointed and p***** off when we lose, regardless of how we’ve played especially if I think we could’ve won by using different tactics and making fewer high risk/low reward mistakes.

 

[Weststander]

Who knows how many more Root/Robinson/Anderson would have contributed but history indicates that once Root passes 100, he usually fills his boots. He is skillful enough to manouvere the strike. Robinson looked comfortable. The pitch was flat. The Aussies were on the ropes.
Then the declaration, which felt like a boxer standing off a reeling opponent and not finishing him off. The opponent recovers and thinks..." 393.....hmm...take that......if we can get over 300 we are back in this ".....and they were.
When you bat first in a Test, the primary object is to score 450. That means the opposition have to get 250+ to avoid the follow on. It is pyschological. .
Geez....we had only batted 78 overs. We had thrown our bats at everything in a gung ho fashion. Two players stumped on the first day of a Test on a good surface. We underworked the Aussie bowlers. None bowled more than 15 overs. It allowed them to be fresher in the second innings and roll us over for a lower total than we would have liked. Bazball takes no consideration of that.
Ultimately, we didn't pay the Aussies enough respect. At 227-8, late on the last day, Stokes thought he had the game won. Having bowled Ali too much, he then compounded it by giving Root one over too many. That cost 14 runs and set the Aussies on a victory path.
Bazball doesn't deal in fine margins. Its death or glory. It is about taking risks. Test cricket is a five day battle between bat and ball and its about playing the percentages. We are not playing Ireland here. This is the best team in the world. You can't give them an inch. We did.

Quality post.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Remind me when we last won it and what tactics we'd employed in the meantime?

I can expand, 2015.

Since then in the Ashes (not including this series) we are P15 W2 D3 L10

So anyone thinking we need to revert to something England was previously doing as if it was working in order to win the Ashes may need to think again...

No one is saying that. Just play a more refined version of Bazball. There was not need, this case, to go Bazball 2.0.

Lets face it, we were already playing Bazball before the declaration. We had scored 400 runs for the loss of 8 wickets in well under a days play. Somehow, this wasn't enough and we wanted to try something even more extreme. It backfired.

Bazball is fantastic because it makes us more likely to win games and masks our current batters inadequacies. They have struggled occupying the crease playing 'proper' test cricket. Bazball allows them to play with more freedom and score much more naturally. Thus they tend to score more runs, in the same amount of balls/time and move the game along, win - win. There is also room for the creative thinking in the field and with the bowlers, I'm all for that as well. Lets not start cutting off one's nose to spite one's face in the process!

 

[BN41Albion]

Do you want to win the Ashes?

Yes, but it hasn't finished yet. 4 more to tests to go.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No one is saying that. Just play a more refined version of Bazball. There was not need, this case, to go Bazball 2.0.

Lets face it, we were already playing Bazball before the declaration. We had scored 400 runs for the loss of 8 wickets in well under a days play. Somehow, this wasn't enough and we wanted to try something even more extreme. It backfired.

Bazball is fantastic because it makes us more likely to win games and masks our current batters inadequacies. They have struggled occupying the crease playing 'proper' test cricket. Bazball allows them to play with more freedom and score much more naturally. Thus they tend to score more runs, in the same amount of balls/time and move the game along, win - win. There is also room for the creative thinking in the field and with the bowlers, I'm all for that as well. Lets not start cutting off one's nose to spite one's face in the process!

The whole thing is about attacking. You're either thinking this way or you're not. The declaration is just a line in a long line of decisions and things that could have gone better over the course of 5 days, it is no where near the definitive thing. There isn't a refined version, just like there probably isn't a refined version of DeZerbi-ball, 1 nil up with 5 to play at home to Palace we are still playing it around our box under pressure. That's it. You buy into it or you don't, I don't think there is a refined - oh play it long for the last 5mins version, and that is the same for Stokes happy to have 400 on the board and wanting an awkward period to bowl at them.

Just like DeZerbi-ball if you make mistakes you lose games. We didn't lose at Forest because of the tactics, we made mistakes, and the same over the 5 days, a couple too many mistakes cost us, not the tactical declaration.

We may well change personnel, for Lords, but I don't think we'll change approach. It's been some of the most exciting innovative cricket from England since 2005.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Different schools of thought, but Broad is a shoo in for me in a home Ashes series. he has over 100 wickets at Lords, Wood's record there is not great (and he has played a lot of Tests there). It's a shame Woakes isn't being considered as he has the place on a string. I think the bowling is okay, except for the spinner. But we've been saying that since forever outside the Swann years. Dawson would be an option as he can bat too.

Just to tug a little on this particular loose thread, Wood's record at Lords since he lengthened his run up in 2019 is respectable (average under 30, wicket in every innings he's bowled in), albeit only includes two matches. His matches there prior to that were in 2015 when he did about as well as anybody else.

 

[Eeyore]

Ollie's view

Ollie Robinson: We Were Surprised By How Unwilling Australia Were To Go Toe-To-Toe With Us

Ollie Robinson, in his first Wisden.com column, shares his views on the Edgbaston Test and becoming public enemy number one Down Under

wisden.com

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Ollie's view

Ollie Robinson: We Were Surprised By How Unwilling Australia Were To Go Toe-To-Toe With Us

Ollie Robinson, in his first Wisden.com column, shares his views on the Edgbaston Test and becoming public enemy number one Down Under

wisden.com

Ollie, you lost mate