It's The Ashes (again)

[AnelkasBeard]

Slow, steady and sensible wins the race. Who's have thunk it, eh? 

Dropping catches, missing stumpings and having a bowler that won't / can't bowl helps lose em

Agreed. 

I'm not calling for an overhaul in style or selection, or anything as ludicrous as that. But Foakes has to come in and we must select a genuine spin bowler who has played regular cricket. Quite who that is, I don't know. But we can't persist with Ali. We need to somehow find a balance between being aggressive and showing positive intent without being reckless and giving wickets away. You don't need to be reverse sweeping, ramping and slogging to score quick runs. There's plenty of safe and sensible ways to score runs. 

Australia have taught England a bit of a lesson over the last five days. Slow, sensible and steady cricket beats fast, aggressive and reckless cricket.

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

[Cheshire East Baggie]

Controversially I'd bring in Woakes to replace Stokes, who is a luxury given his current fitness. He can barely bowl and his injury is affecting the batting.

He bowled a total of 14 overs. And whilst he bowled OK and did a job, we need more from your 3/4 pace option. Especially given the presumably flat nature of wickets this summers weather will provide.

I rate and love a fully fit Stokes, but a half fit Stokes is a luxury we can't afford when we've got adequate replacements twiddling their thumbs.

Stokes and his glass knee would be OK if Mo could bowl 30 overs each innings and Jimmy could be magic in both innings. If he weren't captain he would be vulnerable for sure. But this is about people, personalities, getting the band back together and keeping it together. I wouldn't be surprised to see an unchanged side for Lords. Baz'n'Ben probably think there's no such thing as a bad decision.

Now they're one up, might the Aussies bring Stark in to teach Ollie Robinson some manners and tame the Nighthawk?

[Lurker#3]

So now it's all settled, and we move onto Lords for game #2. What do we do with the spin issue?

Moeen gives us real batting depth and turns the ball really well but not consistently enough, even when fit. But the best we have. Does he really want it, though? Not sure he does.

So then we're onto the 'options':

Liam Dawson - Experienced, plays a huge number of minutes every red ball season and does a bit of everything. Not inspiring but a very capable option. The 'Adam Reach'

Will Jacks - Probably the next cab off the rank for Bazball. Spins well, and spanks it hard when batting. The one I would most likely go with.

Rehan Ahmed - Seems to be the next big hope. Might be too early for him to be playing such a vital role in an ashes team. If they think he's ready though he would be another reason to tune in for sure!

Amar Virdi - Probably the biggest turner of the ball we've got knocking about. Didn't play much red ball cricket last summer though. Doesn't bat either. But if we want a wicket taking spinner, he could be an interesting shout.

[Ted Maul]

So now it's all settled, and we move onto Lords for game #2. What do we do with the spin issue?

Moeen gives us real batting depth and turns the ball really well but not consistently enough, even when fit. But the best we have. Does he really want it, though? Not sure he does.

So then we're onto the 'options':

Liam Dawson - Experienced, plays a huge number of minutes every red ball season and does a bit of everything. Not inspiring but a very capable option. The 'Adam Reach'

Will Jacks - Probably the next cab off the rank for Bazball. Spins well, and spanks it hard when batting. The one I would most likely go with.

Rehan Ahmed - Seems to be the next big hope. Might be too early for him to be playing such a vital role in an ashes team. If they think he's ready though he would be another reason to tune in for sure!

Amar Virdi - Probably the biggest turner of the ball we've got knocking about. Didn't play much red ball cricket last summer though. Doesn't bat either. But if we want a wicket taking spinner, he could be an interesting shout.

A couple of years ago I feel Virdi would have been a shoe-in. The English obsession with picking a bowler based on their ability to swing the bat will kill us. Someone who can give it a rip and hold an end up will suffice. 

I'm more worried about Jimmy looking cooked already.

[SuperBob2002]

Slow, steady and sensible wins the race. Who's have thunk it, eh? 

Dropping catches, missing stumpings and having a bowler that won't / can't bowl helps lose em

Agreed. 

I'm not calling for an overhaul in style or selection, or anything as ludicrous as that. But Foakes has to come in and we must select a genuine spin bowler who has played regular cricket. Quite who that is, I don't know. But we can't persist with Ali. We need to somehow find a balance between being aggressive and showing positive intent without being reckless and giving wickets away. You don't need to be reverse sweeping, ramping and slogging to score quick runs. There's plenty of safe and sensible ways to score runs. 

Australia have taught England a bit of a lesson over the last five days. Slow, sensible and steady cricket beats fast, aggressive and reckless cricket.

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

They have won the first Test by playing ruthless and battling cricket. We had our chances, but didn't take it. We're not ruthless enough, and until we find that killer instinct and actually select the best team and players available, we won't have consistent success against the best sides. We're being too loyal to certain players (Crawley, and arguably Anderson and Stokes), and selecting players who haven't played red ball cricket in years). How'd you expect to win an Ashes series when you're already conceding an advantage to the opposition by not playing your best and strongest squad? Just another way where we're not ruthless enough. 

I don't think the declaration ultimately cost us, it was poor selection, but winning that toss, in that pitch, in those conditions, you should have been looking to pile on 500plus runs, bat for 1 & 3/4 days while grinding the opposition down in the field as well as batting the opposition out of the game. That's what Australia would have done. They would have ground us into the ground, shown no mercy, and then bowl at a tired and worn down batting line up. They may not have won, and that tactic would probably have led to a draw, but they wouldn't have lost the Test. 

So yes, Australia have taught England a lesson, but we're far too stubborn and set into this overly aggressive mentality that will cost us consistency. They're current World Test Champions, the best side in the world and arguably the best Australian side since the early 2000's. Why shouldn't we look at how they play and take lessons from them? They're the standard. We're trying to invent the wheel while Australia are the wheel. We selected Edgbaston as the venue for the first Test due to its caldron like atmosphere to intimidate the Aussies, we won the toss and had first dibs on a featherbed pitch in batsman friendly conditions and we chose to throw that advantage away and hand initiative to the opponent. THAT is the lesson Australia have and will teach us - Read the game situation and hammer home your advantage.

That's two Tests out of three we have lost when declaring. Will we learn the lesson or continue with ignorance? 

We're talented enough to beat this Australian side but the current selection and mentality won't get the job done, unfortunately. As I've said, I like us being aggressive and positive, but we don't need to be reckless and we need to play the game situation when it requires. You can't consistently go gung ho. It has already cost us the first Test of the Ashes. We must learn from that error and reign in the recklessness and replace it with some sensible cricket.

[Peachy]

Dropping catches, missing stumpings and having a bowler that won't / can't bowl helps lose em

Agreed. 

I'm not calling for an overhaul in style or selection, or anything as ludicrous as that. But Foakes has to come in and we must select a genuine spin bowler who has played regular cricket. Quite who that is, I don't know. But we can't persist with Ali. We need to somehow find a balance between being aggressive and showing positive intent without being reckless and giving wickets away. You don't need to be reverse sweeping, ramping and slogging to score quick runs. There's plenty of safe and sensible ways to score runs. 

Australia have taught England a bit of a lesson over the last five days. Slow, sensible and steady cricket beats fast, aggressive and reckless cricket.

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

They have won the first Test by playing ruthless and battling cricket. We had our chances, but didn't take it. We're not ruthless enough, and until we find that killer instinct and actually select the best team and players available, we won't have consistent success against the best sides. We're being too loyal to certain players (Crawley, and arguably Anderson and Stokes), and selecting players who haven't played red ball cricket in years). How'd you expect to win an Ashes series when you're already conceding an advantage to the opposition by not playing your best and strongest squad? Just another way where we're not ruthless enough. 

I don't think the declaration ultimately cost us, it was poor selection, but winning that toss, in that pitch, in those conditions, you should have been looking to pile on 500plus runs, bat for 1 & 3/4 days while grinding the opposition down in the field as well as batting the opposition out of the game. That's what Australia would have done. They  would have ground us into the ground, shown no mercy, and then bowl at a tired and worn down batting line up. They may not have won, and that tactic would probably have led to a draw, but they wouldn't have lost the Test. 

So yes, Australia have taught England a lesson, but we're far too stubborn and set into this overly aggressive mentality that will cost us consistency. They're current World Test Champions, the best side in the world and arguably the best Australian side since the early 2000's. Why shouldn't we look at how they play and take lessons from them? They're the standard. We're trying to invent the wheel while Australia are the wheel.

That's two Tests out of three we have lost when declaring. Will we learn the lesson or continue with ignorance? 

We're talented enough to beat this Australian side but the current selection and mentality won't get the job done, unfortunately. As I've said, I like us being aggressive and positive, but we don't need to be reckless and we need to play the game situation when it requires. You can't consistently go gung ho. It has already cost us the first Test of the Ashes. We must learn from that error and reign in the recklessness and replace it with some sensible cricket.

Spot on. There is a middle ground to be found between Bazball and boring cricket. I like our attitude and it's refreshing but we still need to think clearly and play the match as it unfolds. Root was in great touch when we declared. I'd have told him he can have another 30 minutes to throw the bat at things. It could have made all the difference. If we had tail enders in and were straight batting everything then fair enough but whilst Root was in the groove I thought the declaration looked more than a tad eager. I know there were other factors going on, flat wicket, Ali's injury, dropped catches etc, but another 40 runs on our total and I think we'd have beaten them.

[DemonicBaggie]

Dropping catches, missing stumpings and having a bowler that won't / can't bowl helps lose em

Agreed. 

I'm not calling for an overhaul in style or selection, or anything as ludicrous as that. But Foakes has to come in and we must select a genuine spin bowler who has played regular cricket. Quite who that is, I don't know. But we can't persist with Ali. We need to somehow find a balance between being aggressive and showing positive intent without being reckless and giving wickets away. You don't need to be reverse sweeping, ramping and slogging to score quick runs. There's plenty of safe and sensible ways to score runs. 

Australia have taught England a bit of a lesson over the last five days. Slow, sensible and steady cricket beats fast, aggressive and reckless cricket.

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

They have won the first Test by playing ruthless and battling cricket. We had our chances, but didn't take it. We're not ruthless enough, and until we find that killer instinct and actually select the best team and players available, we won't have consistent success against the best sides. We're being too loyal to certain players (Crawley, and arguably Anderson and Stokes), and selecting players who haven't played red ball cricket in years). How'd you expect to win an Ashes series when you're already conceding an advantage to the opposition by not playing your best and strongest squad? Just another way where we're not ruthless enough. 

I don't think the declaration ultimately cost us, it was poor selection, but winning that toss, in that pitch, in those conditions, you should have been looking to pile on 500plus runs, bat for 1 & 3/4 days while grinding the opposition down in the field as well as batting the opposition out of the game. That's what Australia would have done. They  would have ground us into the ground, shown no mercy, and then bowl at a tired and worn down batting line up. They may not have won, and that tactic would probably have led to a draw, but they wouldn't have lost the Test. 

So yes, Australia have taught England a lesson, but we're far too stubborn and set into this overly aggressive mentality that will cost us consistency. They're current World Test Champions, the best side in the world and arguably the best Australian side since the early 2000's. Why shouldn't we look at how they play and take lessons from them? They're the standard. We're trying to invent the wheel while Australia are the wheel.

That's two Tests out of three we have lost when declaring. Will we learn the lesson or continue with ignorance? 

We're talented enough to beat this Australian side but the current selection and mentality won't get the job done, unfortunately. As I've said, I like us being aggressive and positive, but we don't need to be reckless and we need to play the game situation when it requires. You can't consistently go gung ho. It has already cost us the first Test of the Ashes. We must learn from that error and reign in the recklessness and replace it with some sensible cricket.

Agree with a lot of those points.
Given that our catching was lacking, stumpings were missed and we had a patched up bowling line up, then making a declaration on the first day of the test with under 400 on the board doesn't seem like the greatest way of going forward. OK, it provides great entertainment, produces a result, puts bums on seats, etc. But providing unnecessary advantages to the opposition won't win an Ashes series.

[Lurker#3]

Agreed. 

I'm not calling for an overhaul in style or selection, or anything as ludicrous as that. But Foakes has to come in and we must select a genuine spin bowler who has played regular cricket. Quite who that is, I don't know. But we can't persist with Ali. We need to somehow find a balance between being aggressive and showing positive intent without being reckless and giving wickets away. You don't need to be reverse sweeping, ramping and slogging to score quick runs. There's plenty of safe and sensible ways to score runs. 

Australia have taught England a bit of a lesson over the last five days. Slow, sensible and steady cricket beats fast, aggressive and reckless cricket.

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

They have won the first Test by playing ruthless and battling cricket. We had our chances, but didn't take it. We're not ruthless enough, and until we find that killer instinct and actually select the best team and players available, we won't have consistent success against the best sides. We're being too loyal to certain players (Crawley, and arguably Anderson and Stokes), and selecting players who haven't played red ball cricket in years). How'd you expect to win an Ashes series when you're already conceding an advantage to the opposition by not playing your best and strongest squad? Just another way where we're not ruthless enough. 

I don't think the declaration ultimately cost us, it was poor selection, but winning that toss, in that pitch, in those conditions, you should have been looking to pile on 500plus runs, bat for 1 & 3/4 days while grinding the opposition down in the field as well as batting the opposition out of the game. That's what Australia would have done. They  would have ground us into the ground, shown no mercy, and then bowl at a tired and worn down batting line up. They may not have won, and that tactic would probably have led to a draw, but they wouldn't have lost the Test. 

So yes, Australia have taught England a lesson, but we're far too stubborn and set into this overly aggressive mentality that will cost us consistency. They're current World Test Champions, the best side in the world and arguably the best Australian side since the early 2000's. Why shouldn't we look at how they play and take lessons from them? They're the standard. We're trying to invent the wheel while Australia are the wheel.

That's two Tests out of three we have lost when declaring. Will we learn the lesson or continue with ignorance? 

We're talented enough to beat this Australian side but the current selection and mentality won't get the job done, unfortunately. As I've said, I like us being aggressive and positive, but we don't need to be reckless and we need to play the game situation when it requires. You can't consistently go gung ho. It has already cost us the first Test of the Ashes. We must learn from that error and reign in the recklessness and replace it with some sensible cricket.

Agree with a lot of those points.
Given that our catching was lacking, stumpings were missed and we had a patched up bowling line up, then making a declaration on the first day of the test with under 400 on the board doesn't seem like the greatest way of going forward. OK, it provides great entertainment, produces a result, puts bums on seats, etc. But providing unnecessary advantages to the opposition won't win an Ashes series.

Our loss was absolutely nothing to do with the declaration. As pointe dout. We missed chances throughout, and in fact I think we were too hesitant in the final session. We didnt apply enough pressure around the batters, we didn't sledge them enough, we worried too much about the boundaries and gave them space to breathe and play each ball on its merit. 

As soon as we got Khawaja out we should have pressed the wicket, got catchers everywhere, took that new ball and got Jimmy and Broady in applying pressure and got the crowd going. 

If you're going to do something you have to commit 100%

[DemonicBaggie]

England have dropped catches and missed stumpings that have cost significant numbers of runs. They’ve also had two of their main bowlers struggling with injury for the majority of the game. Despite all this, they find themselves 1/2 to win the game deep into the final session. 

Struggling to see how, given the above, that the Aussies have taught England a lesson?

Completely agree, but he won't answer.

The declaration isn't why we lost. The missed catches (there were a lot), missed stumping, and the no balls bowled were the reason we lost. Take even 2/3 of those chances at the right time, and we'd have won relatively easily. Broad doesn't no ball when he bowled Khawaja, I think there's another 20/30 runs instantly that we really could have used.

Those 3 things, every cricket team has to get right to win a match, and that's why they're far more important. The declaration is just something Stokes and McCullum are going to do because it fits in with their ethos. Get used to it.

They have won the first Test by playing ruthless and battling cricket. We had our chances, but didn't take it. We're not ruthless enough, and until we find that killer instinct and actually select the best team and players available, we won't have consistent success against the best sides. We're being too loyal to certain players (Crawley, and arguably Anderson and Stokes), and selecting players who haven't played red ball cricket in years). How'd you expect to win an Ashes series when you're already conceding an advantage to the opposition by not playing your best and strongest squad? Just another way where we're not ruthless enough. 

I don't think the declaration ultimately cost us, it was poor selection, but winning that toss, in that pitch, in those conditions, you should have been looking to pile on 500plus runs, bat for 1 & 3/4 days while grinding the opposition down in the field as well as batting the opposition out of the game. That's what Australia would have done. They  would have ground us into the ground, shown no mercy, and then bowl at a tired and worn down batting line up. They may not have won, and that tactic would probably have led to a draw, but they wouldn't have lost the Test. 

So yes, Australia have taught England a lesson, but we're far too stubborn and set into this overly aggressive mentality that will cost us consistency. They're current World Test Champions, the best side in the world and arguably the best Australian side since the early 2000's. Why shouldn't we look at how they play and take lessons from them? They're the standard. We're trying to invent the wheel while Australia are the wheel.

That's two Tests out of three we have lost when declaring. Will we learn the lesson or continue with ignorance? 

We're talented enough to beat this Australian side but the current selection and mentality won't get the job done, unfortunately. As I've said, I like us being aggressive and positive, but we don't need to be reckless and we need to play the game situation when it requires. You can't consistently go gung ho. It has already cost us the first Test of the Ashes. We must learn from that error and reign in the recklessness and replace it with some sensible cricket.

Agree with a lot of those points.
Given that our catching was lacking, stumpings were missed and we had a patched up bowling line up, then making a declaration on the first day of the test with under 400 on the board doesn't seem like the greatest way of going forward. OK, it provides great entertainment, produces a result, puts bums on seats, etc. But providing unnecessary advantages to the opposition won't win an Ashes series.

Our loss was absolutely nothing to do with the declaration. As pointe dout. We missed chances throughout, and in fact I think we were too hesitant in the final session. We didnt apply enough pressure around the batters, we didn't sledge them enough, we worried too much about the boundaries and gave them space to breathe and play each ball on its merit. 

As soon as we got Khawaja out we should have pressed the wicket, got catchers everywhere, took that new ball and got Jimmy and Broady in applying pressure and got the crowd going. 

If you're going to do something you have to commit 100%

"Our loss was absolutely nothing to do with the declaration".
Weird, I thought the team scoring the most runs won the game. Maybe I need to think outside the box a bit more.

[Cuzer]

Not read the backlog on here and been away for a few days but managed to tune in to most of the test

Firstly, great game and a pattern you feel we will see in the Stokes/Baz era, could easily have drawn the game or played for a draw but they will never do that, said all along in fairness to them that they will play result cricket and the mentaility in both innings, the decleration and the fields all played into that

Unique how they do it, no other test sides plays anything like it and sometimes it will work out, sometimes not, definitely felt Englad were in the box seat for 75% of the test but lack of fully fit bowlers IMO cost us in the end, bodes well for the rest of the summer but losing the opening Ashes test is never ideal and the Aussies will have a boost when really they should have been shell shocked from what they witnesses for 5 days

Definite defeat from the jaws of victory on this occasion

Cuzer