Hi Neil, while the new ball may have been ineffective, it was more of a "Bazballish" approach to take it. I am supporting the position that it was not Bazball that sunk England, but the missed opportunities, and am enjoying this approach to cricket, and would hate England to change because they lose a Test or two for other reasons. As much as it pained me to watch Stokes' double hundred at Newlands, it was certainly brilliant cricket.
Anton, the new ball was almost completely ineffective - it may even have provided the easiest batting conditions, as unusual as that is outside the subcontinent. So, I'm not sure we can put the delayed taking of it down to anything 'funky'. The dropped catches and missed stumpings, however, were even less funky!
There will be a disconnect with the fans if they keep,throwing away wins to be entertaining. As a Brit, I can assure you if we won the ashes it wouldn’t matter how it came. We most want to beat the convicts at any cost.
Anthony, I think the problem is the (public) use of the phrase 'not result focussed'. It is a common strategy for teams, for the benefit of the players who, hopefully, respond by playing with greater freedom and success. But it does not translate well for supporters who have invested heavily in supporting their team. Right? Keep the sports psychology in the dressing room, I'd suggest...
You do you realise we have a sense of humour in the UK and it winds up the Aussies, so winner all round. To be pedantic have you considered that modern descendants of Brits sent to Aus are in fact descendants of convicts, so…..
Can't take a joke, mate? Can dish it out but can't take it back? You're very delicate and thin-skinned aren't you, you Brits?! Come on--you're calling other nationalities convicts and humourless, everyone knows that you lot are really thick--but hey, at least you're thick but without criminal records...:-) (Although between you and me mate, I think you know that last bit isn't as true as you like to pretend either...)
And again--you think that you're being humourous? Heaven help us--sounds more like rather insecurely throwing your weight around to me. Is that another British trait?
Hi Dave Carter. If you look at the thread it was all banter until you arrived throwing around your insults. Laughable that you called me childish and puerile. I don’t like you so won’t be responding further.
I don’t know where you are from but calling someone puerile and moronic is not only un called for it is also probably written either by a convict or a humourless saffer who still doesn’t like us for whatever reason. Listen up mate we’re all going to die at some point.
Yes indeed, Roger. Nail struck firmly on its head. The first innings declaration was utterly irrelevant, or would have been, had catches and stumpings been completed. And the assumption that Root and Robinson 'would' have added another 30 runs irritates me. Likely as it looked, one should never make any assumptions, of any sort, in this game.
Tim, I'm a big sceptic of selecting players on sentiment but, honestly, Anderson has not just been one of the best bowlers in the world over the last 3-4 years, but he appears to be getting better! There is, surely, no issue with selecting him for the first Test. But I agree that sentiment should play no part in future selection - especially when it comes to the Old Trafford Test.
My concern with Bazball is that it looks like turning Test cricket into an extended form of ODI cricket, where ordinary batsmen (though good hitters) get runs on flat wickets and skillful bowlers get negated. We get enough of that already in white-ball cricket. Test cricket should be about a fair, though varying battle of bat against ball. There should be times over 5 days when the bat has the upperhand, and other times when the ball has the upperhand.
I detest Test cricket where the bowling side resorts to 4 or 5 short balls an over with a leg-side field. I fear that's going to happen a lot in this series as Eng are going to demand (like they clearly did at Edgbaston) grassless wickets. That wicket was made specifically for their top 8 batsmen, 4 of which are flat-track bullies.
Ollie Robertson is a very skillful bowler but he was forced to run in and bowl 127kmh bouncers to a leg-side field without a slip. I don't think that's good Test cricket.
One final thought... if Alistair Cook had just finished his 2nd year in County cricket and had shown he's the top 4-day opener in the country, in Bazball he would never get selected for England. He would never play Test cricket. But Ben Duckett would.
Mate, if teams want to play Test cricket like ODI cricket (with the bat) then it's up to the bowling team to have the skills to take advantage, no? I agree that 'fair' Test pitches would be welcome in a perfect world, but pitch preparation is an organic process over which very few (if any, ever) groundsmen have control. When a curator as good as Gary Barwell, at Edgbaston, is asked for a 'flat' pitch he will err on the side of caution and give it less water than usual. You then run the risk of a dry, slow and lifeless pitch which is what we saw in Birmingham. All of my sympathies are with him!
Re your first point Neil--not exactly, because the regulations (especially on bat sizes and weights and on lengths of boundary) have been changed so radically from 40 or 50 years ago as to substantially alter the balance of the game. If it were purely down to batters' technique and inventiveness then it would be up to bowlers to stop it, but it isn't--it's enabled by a sustained campaign by administrators to have more "exciting" cricket, by which they simply mean more boundaries.
Hah, I thought you were going in a different direction with this at first, reading about Duncan's club cricket career. Because the impact of Bazball (and, more generally, the torrent of sixes we see in every format now) on normal club cricketers needs more discussion. If I, as a supremely ordinary batsman brought up on careful and diligent shot selection, try to emulate that, I simply get out. Not in a Bazbally kind of sometimes-it-comes-off, sometimes-it-doesn't kind of way, but EVERY TIME. It's a question of execution. I can't hit sixes or reverse ramps - at least not with my training limited to a 10-minute bat every fortnight - and I also need a lot of forward defences. Which would be fine, except that the general atmosphere stemming from cricket as seen on TV is that this is shamefully regressive. Fact is, though, that batting has always been difficult and it becomes more so when a 'solid' approach is no longer an option. Only a select few can actually execute what we see in modern TV cricket - particularly Bazball - on the village green without getting repeatedly caught at mid-off (or bowled) for single digits. For a mortal batsman like myself, there appear to be no ups to justify the downs that come with this mindset. The topic of the impact of Bazball, etc. on kids and club players is an interesting one to explore. Even as older coaches may still throw the MCC coaching manual at them, they will inevitably feel pressure to emulate their heroes when they get to the square. If they can't execute - and most of us can't - will they throw in the towel with an already frustratingly punishing sport?
Hello my old friend! Your point is an interesting one. I suspect the 'problem' you highlight is more of an issue at junior and school level. Young cricketers may feel the need to emulate their heroes but I would hope that, seniors like us, would play the opposition rather than trying to reverse-ramp just because Joe Root is doing that. If we're playing a Club game and someone is successfully playing trick shots. good for them. They are obviously supremely talented or have the time (and means) to perfect them in nets. Good for them. The rest of us will just have o carry on playing like Usman Khawaja, which obviously worked at Edgbaston... :)
“We’ll never get both of bloody Smith and Labuschagne out cheaply in both innings again…”. Too true, my friend! A small irony to ponder: the former top three ranked batsmen in World cricket -- in the same batting order, too! -- Marnus Labuschagne (13), Steve Smith (6) and Travis Heard (16) -- were the three lowest scorers in Australia's second innings -- each lower than "Mr Extras" with 18! That, too, doesn't happen very often, but perhaps serves to reinforce the all-round capabilities of the rest of the Australian team.
This all-round batting strength in the Australian team is backed up by the following pertinent statistics (or trivia, depending on one's point of view!): the average scores of the remaining eight players in the Aussie team in the first Test were 40 in their first innings and 35 in the second innings ("extras" attributed to their total for this purpose); conversely, apart from a half century by Heard in the first innings, the average individual score of the so-called "top-ranked" three Aussies -- Marnus, Steve and Travis -- for the match was 10.2! Who said that "Stats don't lie"?
P.S. The ICC rankings seem to be constantly changing, which makes comparisons odious ... but interesting nevertheless!
Love it, Hollie! I enjoy cricket stats as much as anybody, probably far more than the average cricket supporter. And two of the reasons I enjoy stats so much are: They can be delightfully twisted and turned to suit your argument... and, sometimes, they are complete bollocks! Some of the 'match-up' stats in T20 Cricket would embarrass Mickey Mouse. If he ever played cricket.
Hi Neil, while the new ball may have been ineffective, it was more of a "Bazballish" approach to take it. I am supporting the position that it was not Bazball that sunk England, but the missed opportunities, and am enjoying this approach to cricket, and would hate England to change because they lose a Test or two for other reasons. As much as it pained me to watch Stokes' double hundred at Newlands, it was certainly brilliant cricket.
Agree with the comment - too many dropped catches and missed stumpings!
Also would have preferred the new ball as soon as Root got his wicket on the final day.
Anton, the new ball was almost completely ineffective - it may even have provided the easiest batting conditions, as unusual as that is outside the subcontinent. So, I'm not sure we can put the delayed taking of it down to anything 'funky'. The dropped catches and missed stumpings, however, were even less funky!
There will be a disconnect with the fans if they keep,throwing away wins to be entertaining. As a Brit, I can assure you if we won the ashes it wouldn’t matter how it came. We most want to beat the convicts at any cost.
Anthony, I think the problem is the (public) use of the phrase 'not result focussed'. It is a common strategy for teams, for the benefit of the players who, hopefully, respond by playing with greater freedom and success. But it does not translate well for supporters who have invested heavily in supporting their team. Right? Keep the sports psychology in the dressing room, I'd suggest...
You do realise that there has never been a single Australian convict and that every convict was a British citizen?
:-)
Ha! Ha! There's never any doubt that you will find the pithy and relevant comment!
You do you realise we have a sense of humour in the UK and it winds up the Aussies, so winner all round. To be pedantic have you considered that modern descendants of Brits sent to Aus are in fact descendants of convicts, so…..
Now then, this IS what I'd call proper (harmless) 'banter'... :)
If that kind of puerile, moronic jibe is what passes for humour in Britain, then heaven help us!
Can't take a joke, mate? Can dish it out but can't take it back? You're very delicate and thin-skinned aren't you, you Brits?! Come on--you're calling other nationalities convicts and humourless, everyone knows that you lot are really thick--but hey, at least you're thick but without criminal records...:-) (Although between you and me mate, I think you know that last bit isn't as true as you like to pretend either...)
And again--you think that you're being humourous? Heaven help us--sounds more like rather insecurely throwing your weight around to me. Is that another British trait?
...well one person's banter is another person's insult I guess--which of course was my whole point...:-)
Hi Dave Carter. If you look at the thread it was all banter until you arrived throwing around your insults. Laughable that you called me childish and puerile. I don’t like you so won’t be responding further.
I don’t know where you are from but calling someone puerile and moronic is not only un called for it is also probably written either by a convict or a humourless saffer who still doesn’t like us for whatever reason. Listen up mate we’re all going to die at some point.
I will accept the sledge, "You're great, great, great, great, great grandad was a convict!"
:-)
Sorry mate you just don’t get it, so move on and watch the Walton’s on Little house on the prairie. I would suggest they will suit you better.
I think I spotted Bazball's weakness. It doesn't work if you drop catches and miss stumpings.
Yes indeed, Roger. Nail struck firmly on its head. The first innings declaration was utterly irrelevant, or would have been, had catches and stumpings been completed. And the assumption that Root and Robinson 'would' have added another 30 runs irritates me. Likely as it looked, one should never make any assumptions, of any sort, in this game.
Perhaps there is too much sentimentality involved in selecting Anderson? No good get fast runs but not being able to take 20 wickets?
Tim, I'm a big sceptic of selecting players on sentiment but, honestly, Anderson has not just been one of the best bowlers in the world over the last 3-4 years, but he appears to be getting better! There is, surely, no issue with selecting him for the first Test. But I agree that sentiment should play no part in future selection - especially when it comes to the Old Trafford Test.
My concern with Bazball is that it looks like turning Test cricket into an extended form of ODI cricket, where ordinary batsmen (though good hitters) get runs on flat wickets and skillful bowlers get negated. We get enough of that already in white-ball cricket. Test cricket should be about a fair, though varying battle of bat against ball. There should be times over 5 days when the bat has the upperhand, and other times when the ball has the upperhand.
I detest Test cricket where the bowling side resorts to 4 or 5 short balls an over with a leg-side field. I fear that's going to happen a lot in this series as Eng are going to demand (like they clearly did at Edgbaston) grassless wickets. That wicket was made specifically for their top 8 batsmen, 4 of which are flat-track bullies.
Ollie Robertson is a very skillful bowler but he was forced to run in and bowl 127kmh bouncers to a leg-side field without a slip. I don't think that's good Test cricket.
One final thought... if Alistair Cook had just finished his 2nd year in County cricket and had shown he's the top 4-day opener in the country, in Bazball he would never get selected for England. He would never play Test cricket. But Ben Duckett would.
That just can't be right!
Mate, if teams want to play Test cricket like ODI cricket (with the bat) then it's up to the bowling team to have the skills to take advantage, no? I agree that 'fair' Test pitches would be welcome in a perfect world, but pitch preparation is an organic process over which very few (if any, ever) groundsmen have control. When a curator as good as Gary Barwell, at Edgbaston, is asked for a 'flat' pitch he will err on the side of caution and give it less water than usual. You then run the risk of a dry, slow and lifeless pitch which is what we saw in Birmingham. All of my sympathies are with him!
Re your first point Neil--not exactly, because the regulations (especially on bat sizes and weights and on lengths of boundary) have been changed so radically from 40 or 50 years ago as to substantially alter the balance of the game. If it were purely down to batters' technique and inventiveness then it would be up to bowlers to stop it, but it isn't--it's enabled by a sustained campaign by administrators to have more "exciting" cricket, by which they simply mean more boundaries.
Hah, I thought you were going in a different direction with this at first, reading about Duncan's club cricket career. Because the impact of Bazball (and, more generally, the torrent of sixes we see in every format now) on normal club cricketers needs more discussion. If I, as a supremely ordinary batsman brought up on careful and diligent shot selection, try to emulate that, I simply get out. Not in a Bazbally kind of sometimes-it-comes-off, sometimes-it-doesn't kind of way, but EVERY TIME. It's a question of execution. I can't hit sixes or reverse ramps - at least not with my training limited to a 10-minute bat every fortnight - and I also need a lot of forward defences. Which would be fine, except that the general atmosphere stemming from cricket as seen on TV is that this is shamefully regressive. Fact is, though, that batting has always been difficult and it becomes more so when a 'solid' approach is no longer an option. Only a select few can actually execute what we see in modern TV cricket - particularly Bazball - on the village green without getting repeatedly caught at mid-off (or bowled) for single digits. For a mortal batsman like myself, there appear to be no ups to justify the downs that come with this mindset. The topic of the impact of Bazball, etc. on kids and club players is an interesting one to explore. Even as older coaches may still throw the MCC coaching manual at them, they will inevitably feel pressure to emulate their heroes when they get to the square. If they can't execute - and most of us can't - will they throw in the towel with an already frustratingly punishing sport?
Hello my old friend! Your point is an interesting one. I suspect the 'problem' you highlight is more of an issue at junior and school level. Young cricketers may feel the need to emulate their heroes but I would hope that, seniors like us, would play the opposition rather than trying to reverse-ramp just because Joe Root is doing that. If we're playing a Club game and someone is successfully playing trick shots. good for them. They are obviously supremely talented or have the time (and means) to perfect them in nets. Good for them. The rest of us will just have o carry on playing like Usman Khawaja, which obviously worked at Edgbaston... :)
“We’ll never get both of bloody Smith and Labuschagne out cheaply in both innings again…”. Too true, my friend! A small irony to ponder: the former top three ranked batsmen in World cricket -- in the same batting order, too! -- Marnus Labuschagne (13), Steve Smith (6) and Travis Heard (16) -- were the three lowest scorers in Australia's second innings -- each lower than "Mr Extras" with 18! That, too, doesn't happen very often, but perhaps serves to reinforce the all-round capabilities of the rest of the Australian team.
This all-round batting strength in the Australian team is backed up by the following pertinent statistics (or trivia, depending on one's point of view!): the average scores of the remaining eight players in the Aussie team in the first Test were 40 in their first innings and 35 in the second innings ("extras" attributed to their total for this purpose); conversely, apart from a half century by Heard in the first innings, the average individual score of the so-called "top-ranked" three Aussies -- Marnus, Steve and Travis -- for the match was 10.2! Who said that "Stats don't lie"?
P.S. The ICC rankings seem to be constantly changing, which makes comparisons odious ... but interesting nevertheless!
Love it, Hollie! I enjoy cricket stats as much as anybody, probably far more than the average cricket supporter. And two of the reasons I enjoy stats so much are: They can be delightfully twisted and turned to suit your argument... and, sometimes, they are complete bollocks! Some of the 'match-up' stats in T20 Cricket would embarrass Mickey Mouse. If he ever played cricket.