Any changes for 2nd Test 🤔

[dangermows]

They didn't need to bat like it was a T20 when we were effectively 99/1 on day 2. If they bothered to play some red ball cricket at home instead of crying they need a rest, they maybe could adapt their game instead of thinking they're playing T20/16.4 all the time. It was piss poor

And yet Stokes said it was those looking to stay in who had bother. Not sure playing red ball cricket at home prepares you for bouncier Australia pitches either (they should've exposed themselves more to the test conditions).

Did Australia need to bring Head up the order and go guns blazing when they had three days to knock off 200?

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

And yet Stokes said it was those looking to stay in who had bother. Not sure playing red ball cricket at home prepares you for bouncier Australia pitches either (they should've exposed themselves more to the test conditions).

Did Australia need to bring Head up the order and go guns blazing when they had three days to knock off 200?

I had to disagree with Stokes on that one. Having watched our batting, we were just swinging at everything and some of the dismissals were embarrassing because of that and Australia knew as they set that trap and also the hook shot trap... Just leave them alone, be patient and pick off the bad balls which is what test cricket is all about. Strac especially knew, his mindset was "I'll give them a few easy ones then they'll fall for it" and every single time we fell for it like excited school kids. Sitting at home in England not playing red ball cricket will prepare you for nothing, just like a half arsed 3 day game against England Lions won't prepare you for anything, all whilst the Australian team were playing Sheffield Shield. Rewind a year ago India hired out the ground in Perth and played against each other for a week.... Our lads are playing on a soft wicket against the Lions for 3 days then heading on the golf course as the Australian media pointed out. As for the Head going guns blazing, our bowling was piss poor. Starc however was bowling well both innings and Boland 2nd innings but we were arrogant in attempting to slog every single ball. As Vaughan said, you can't win in Australia with that sort of mentality. Going back to preparation which you seem to defend... Let's see how many of them put themselves forward for this 2 day pink ball game coming up... My guess given the arrogance on show during the first test and interviews after...... 0 of them.

 

[Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan]

They didn't need to bat like it was a T20 when we were effectively 99/1 on day 2. If they bothered to play some red ball cricket at home instead of crying they need a rest, they maybe could adapt their game instead of thinking they're playing T20/16.4 all the time. It was piss poor

A mate said to me yesterday that he'd enjoyed those two t20s but was looking forward more to the test matches. Made me smile.

 

[dangermows]

I had to disagree with Stokes on that one. Having watched our batting, we were just swinging at everything and some of the dismissals were embarrassing because of that and Australia knew as they set that trap and also the hook shot trap... Just leave them alone, be patient and pick off the bad balls which is what test cricket is all about. Strac especially knew, his mindset was "I'll give them a few easy ones then they'll fall for it" and every single time we fell for it like excited school kids. Sitting at home in England not playing red ball cricket will prepare you for nothing, just like a half arsed 3 day game against England Lions won't prepare you for anything, all whilst the Australian team were playing Sheffield Shield. Rewind a year ago India hired out the ground in Perth and played against each other for a week.... Our lads are playing on a soft wicket against the Lions for 3 days then heading on the golf course as the Australian media pointed out. As for the Head going guns blazing, our bowling was piss poor. Starc however was bowling well both innings and Boland 2nd innings but we were arrogant in attempting to slog every single ball. As Vaughan said, you can't win in Australia with that sort of mentality. Going back to preparation which you seem to defend... Let's see how many of them put themselves forward for this 2 day pink ball game coming up... My guess given the arrogance on show during the first test and interviews after...... 0 of them.

Fair points within there but I still don't think we have many capable of a proper test innings. So the approach seems to be have them just play shots, and if two or three stay at the crease they'll score plenty and quickly.

On the Aussie batting front. They didn't need to bring a hitter up the order before a ball was bowled if your take is plenty of time, steady away. They chose, from the off, to attack. Perhaps because of how they got on first tine round. It was far from a typical test innings. The execution was superb though and he blew us away.

Who is defending preparation? I'm criticising it. Saying it was poor for this one (nets only) and I'm criticising why they aren't practicing pink ball cricket before the next. Me pointing out they'd be better preparing and practicing in test conditions (I.e. at the ground etc) rather your proposal of red ball back home isn't soneone defending preparations. Vaughan even pointed all that out.

Also, always seems the case that it's us batting or bowling poorly or well rather than what the opposition are doing.

 

[Fleagle]

And yet Stokes said it was those looking to stay in who had bother. Not sure playing red ball cricket at home prepares you for bouncier Australia pitches either (they should've exposed themselves more to the test conditions).

Did Australia need to bring Head up the order and go guns blazing when they had three days to knock off 200?

Exactly. Atherton had it right. The intent was correct the execution was wrong.

Trying to dig in didn’t work. Australia proved that in the first innings when they conceded a first innings lead (it’s eight years since England have even managed one of those here which is partly why it’s so frustrating they didn’t capitalise). Trying to play like it was the English county championship would’ve been even more ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean you should be looking to drive a back of a length fifth stump ball on the up through extra cover.

One of the problems is that the criticism of England’s style is so blanket that it is easy to reject that criticism when is it so demonstrably false given the way Australia won this match. You need the nuance of Atherton’s analysis to explain why England were wrong. Not a yearning for the 1980s.

 

[dangermows]

A mate said to me yesterday that he'd enjoyed those two t20s but was looking forward more to the test matches. Made me smile.

Exactly. Atherton had it right. The intent was correct the execution was wrong.

Trying to dig in didn’t work. Australia proved that in the first innings when they conceded a first innings lead (it’s eight years since England have even managed one of those here which is partly why it’s so frustrating they didn’t capitalise). Trying to play like it was the English county championship would’ve been even more ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean you should be looking to drive a back of a length fifth stump ball on the up through extra cover.

One of the problems is that the criticism of England’s style is so blanket that it is easy to reject that criticism when is it so demonstrably false given the way Australia won this match. You need the nuance of Atherton’s analysis to explain why England were wrong. Not a yearning for the 1980s.

Yep. Good post that.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Fair points within there but I still don't think we have many capable of a proper test innings. So the approach seems to be have them just play shots, and if two or three stay at the crease they'll score plenty and quickly.

On the Aussie batting front. They didn't need to bring a hitter up the order before a ball was bowled if your take is plenty of time, steady away. They chose, from the off, to attack. Perhaps because of how they got on first tine round. It was far from a typical test innings. The execution was superb though and he blew us away.

Who is defending preparation? I'm criticising it. Saying it was poor for this one (nets only) and I'm criticising why they aren't practicing pink ball cricket before the next. Me pointing out they'd be better preparing and practicing in test conditions (I.e. at the ground etc) rather your proposal of red ball back home isn't soneone defending preparations. Vaughan even pointed all that out.

Also, always seems the case that it's us batting or bowling poorly or well rather than what the opposition are doing.

But as the Australian journalist said on Sky Sports this morning, playing that cover shot time and time again in Australia is just suicide yet we kept doing it hence Strac kept pissing himself laughing and setting the trap. Absolutely brain-dead cricket as I call it. You basically defended these lads not playing red ball cricket in England, it's all arrogant from the players and ECB. Some of these lads have hardly played a game in 4 months and again were "rested" in September. I recall Harry Brook on about "too much cricket" during the India test series, then less than a week later he's playing 16.4.... "too much cricket" Harry? . Australia didn't have to do much so I'm not giving them much credit, they stuck to a very basic junior level "plan" that everyone in the world could see "lay the traps these daft twats will keep falling for it". They would have been pissing themselves laughing at how easy it was, so I'm not going to fully congratulate Australia for that as they didn't really need to "think out of the box" or "execute a stunning clever game plan". We aren't particularly great at home either mind.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Exactly. Atherton had it right. The intent was correct the execution was wrong.

Trying to dig in didn’t work. Australia proved that in the first innings when they conceded a first innings lead (it’s eight years since England have even managed one of those here which is partly why it’s so frustrating they didn’t capitalise). Trying to play like it was the English county championship would’ve been even more ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean you should be looking to drive a back of a length fifth stump ball on the up through extra cover.

One of the problems is that the criticism of England’s style is so blanket that it is easy to reject that criticism when is it so demonstrably false given the way Australia won this match. You need the nuance of Atherton’s analysis to explain why England were wrong. Not a yearning for the 1980s.

Exactly there is a balance to be had here, as been pointed out the actual approach the Aussies had to knock 200 off with over 3 days remaining was to promote the most attacking batsman in their side.

And they went at 7 an over, and it was clearly very successful.

People seemingly are forgetting the one innings out of the four where a team tried to dig in The Aussies first innings was the lowest of the game 132 and they were lucky to get that!

So there’s Crawley and one of the five bowlers who all bowl right arm fast/medium for a start.

Do we really need 5 bowlers doing the same thing, with no variations ?

I know the likes of Sibley have been tried before, so I’m not saying pick him, but there’s no harm in having a second look at someone who might have improved or matured second time around.

How many times did the likes of Gatting or Hick get recalled before they got established ?

They is no harm in the sense might as well as Crawley that bad.

But putting the likes of Sibley back against top class international bowlers ( he never even played a test against the Aussies mind and was still bad).

Just don’t see it working, I know people don’t like the knockers of the championship so not going fully down that road.

However facing bowlers in the championship is a million miles away from top class international cricket imo.

 

[dangermows]

But as the Australian journalist said on Sky Sports this morning, playing that cover shot time and time again in Australia is just suicide yet we kept doing it hence Strac kept pissing himself laughing and setting the trap. Absolutely brain-dead cricket as I call it. You basically defended these lads not playing red ball cricket in England, it's all arrogant from the players and ECB. Some of these lads have hardly played a game in 4 months and again were "rested" in September. I recall Harry Brook on about "too much cricket" during the India test series, then less than a week later he's playing 16.4.... "too much cricket" Harry? . Australia didn't have to do much so I'm not giving them much credit, they stuck to a very basic junior level "plan" that everyone in the world could see "lay the traps these daft twats will keep falling for it". They would have been pissing themselves laughing at how easy it was, so I'm not going to fully congratulate Australia for that as they didn't really need to "think out of the box" or "execute a stunning clever game plan". We aren't particularly great at home either mind.

I didn't defend that at all. I said given the bounce was doing them I'm not sure that would've been enough. They needed to practice on Aussie pitches.

Australia had to think on their feet with the bat. Playing more conventional saw them absolutely skittled (couldve been out for under a ton truth be told). So they changed tact and executed it tremendously.

Exactly there is a balance to be had here, as been pointed out the actual approach the Aussies had to knock 200 off with over 3 days remaining was to promote the most attacking batsman in their side.

And they went at 7 an over, and it was clearly very successful.

People seemingly are forgetting the one innings out of the four where a team tried to dig in The Aussies first innings was the lowest of the game 132 and they were lucky to get that!

Ignored rather than forgotten.

 

[VXi]

Inject some brain cells into Stokes cauliflower brain.....

 

[Eggman]

1) Exactly there is a balance to be had here, as been pointed out the actual approach the Aussies had to knock 200 off with over 3 days remaining was to promote the most attacking batsman in their side.

2) But putting the likes of Sibley back against top class international bowlers ( he never even played a test against the Aussies mind and was still bad).

3) However facing bowlers in the championship is a million miles away from top class international cricket imo.

1) They had to promote someone and probably knew England would come out all guns blazing, so opted for the best attacking batsman they have. It worked a treat …. unfortunately

2) Sibley was only an example of a prolific scorer, but I wouldn’t go back to him. Maybe Hamed who initially looked so composed before losing his way.

3) If we don’t use our primary domestic competition to blood potential Test Match cricketers a) what is the point of it and 2) where do you look ? (Schoolboy cricket or just hope Stokes stumbles across someone having a blindingly good net ?)

 

[HeroHurley]

Can we go something like;

Sir Alistair Cook
Sir Geoff Boycott
Michael Vaughan
Joe Root
Ian Bell
Harry Brook
Ben Stokes
Andrew Flintoff
Ashley Giles
Jofra Archer
Mark Wood

I'm sure Harry Brook can take the gloves.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

The game against the Prime Ministers XI is pink ball I see.

But the test squad are skipping it and letting the Lions play apparently

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Inject some brain cells into Stokes cauliflower brain.....

More than just Stokes needing it. His comments have shocked me.

The game against the Prime Ministers XI is pink ball I see.

But the test squad are skipping it and letting the Lions play apparently

The test side will want some golf practice

 

[Aidan11]

But the test squad are skipping it and letting the Lions play apparently

They should do the same for the second test.

The Lions would probably put up a better fight.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

More than just Stokes needing it. His comments have shocked me.


The test side will want some golf practice

Wonder if Brook plays like Happy Gilmore

 

[Voice of fair play]

1) They had to promote someone and probably knew England would come out all guns blazing, so opted for the best attacking batsman they have. It worked a treat …. unfortunately

2) Sibley was only an example of a prolific scorer, but I wouldn’t go back to him. Maybe Hamed who initially looked so composed before losing his way.

3) If we don’t use our primary domestic competition to blood potential Test Match cricketers a) what is the point of it and 2) where do you look ? (Schoolboy cricket or just hope Stokes stumbles across someone having a blindingly good net ?)

Well yeah, you would imagine with everything I read on here that would have been the wrong approach after all they had 3 days to knock of 200, so should they have batted more sensibly or did what they did and won the game easily?

Yeah think we have got to the stage of trying someone to replace Crawley in fact should have happened last year but still not remotely confident of any of the openers currently available stepping up but as I said earlier it’s hard for any opener anywhere in the world at the the moment.

Yeah it’s a fair point your last one I agree the domestic 4 day game should be a barometer to see if openers can cut the mustard, problem is the difference between county cricket and world class test cricket is as wide as it has even been imo, so it’s incredibly difficult more difficult than it was in the past to know who can make the step up, and everyone we tried with that method of picking the openers in county cricket with the best average in the 5 years or so before this regime failed miserably at they were many!

Burns, Robson, Sibley, Hameed, I could go on all failed

Therefore understandably you can see why they may be looking at a different way of identifying them

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Well yeah, you would imagine with everything I read on here that would have been the wrong approach after all they had 3 days to knock of 200, so should they have batted more sensibly or did what they did and won the game easily?

Yeah think we have got to the stage of trying someone to replace Crawley in fact should have happened last year but still not remotely confident of any of the openers currently available stepping up but as I said earlier it’s hard for any opener anywhere in the world at the the moment.

Yeah it’s a fair point your last one I agree the domestic 4 day game should be a barometer to see if openers can cut the mustard, problem is the difference between county cricket and world class test cricket is as wide as it has even been imo, so it’s incredibly difficult more difficult than it was in the past to know who can make the step up, and everyone we tried with that method of picking the openers in county cricket with the best average in the 5 years or so before this regime failed miserably at they were many!

Burns, Robson, Sibley, Hameed, I could go on all failed

Therefore understandably you can see why they may be looking at a different way of identifying them

Those 4 did fail yeah; but they got 71 tests between them. Crawley has had 60 by himself and also failed

 

[Voice of fair play]

Those 4 did fail yeah; but they got 71 tests between them. Crawley has had 60 by himself and also failed

Yeah spot on mate, nobody is saying Crawley should be dropped as he should.

Just making two points one in that imo there is a lack of options in that position.

And two that trying that method of picked best opener in county cricket failed consistently before this regime took over.

Over a number of years

But think everybody should now agree Crawley should no longer be on the side

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Yeah spot on mate, nobody is saying Crawley should be dropped as he should.

Just making two points one in that imo there is a lack of options in that position.

And two that trying that method of picked best opener in county cricket failed consistently before this regime took over.

Over a number of years

But think everybody should now agree Crawley should no longer be on the side

I dont mind the odd punt. But I do think county performances still have merit, we can’t completely dismiss them.

Josh Hull for example, that was an absurd choice