• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Any changes for 2nd Test 🤔

Should be no changes. Tell the side that lost the last test abjectly that they’ve a chance to make amends. If it’s another stinker, wield the axe for Adelaide.
 

DonaldDownTheWing said:
I love the attacking style of cricket we play and I’ve said it loads. We wouldn’t have been able to chase down some of the totals we have in various games had we not played that way. I don’t want us to throw everything out the window and abandon it.

I would like to see us play situations better though. At 100-1 on a pitch that was only going to get better, there had to be someone with the cricketing sense to read the game. I actually think Stokes tried to do that a little bit in both innings but missed a straight one from Starc in the first innings and got a good ball second innings.

Where it makes you want to bang your head against a wall is when Pope gets out trying to play one on 8th stump on the up, which he’s entitled to go for after getting himself in, then Brook & Root play the exact same shot despite not getting in and they’re caught at slip.
Click to expand...
This absolutely nails it for me.

I've been shouting the same for 2 and half years.

Test matches are about ebbs and flows. This side ignores that basic value of playing match situations. They have a method of playing and it fails they just go oh well we'll just keep doing that.

Asking for bazball with brains has been levelled at them by fans and pundits a like. We've yet to get to get it.

I found it galling McCullum came out and said he thought 200 was a good score. When the evidence suggested it was nowhere near enough.
 
Stokes has hit back overnight saying he doesn’t think they’re arrogant and would rather be called rubbish than arrogant.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, but the way they play cricket is, or can be, deemed as arrogant.
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
Stokes has hit back overnight saying he doesn’t think they’re arrogant and would rather be called rubbish than arrogant.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, but the way they play cricket is, or can be, deemed as arrogant.
Click to expand...

It's not as if the blueprint has never been written to win an ashes series by playing with controlled aggression and/or playing to the game situation.
Its not a huge adjustment to make either....
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
Stokes has hit back overnight saying he doesn’t think they’re arrogant and would rather be called rubbish than arrogant.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, but the way they play cricket is, or can be, deemed as arrogant.
Click to expand...
They definitely not arrogant imo, think that’s really unfair?

However without a shadow of a doubt they fully invested in the way they believe is best to win test matches.

Perhaps too invested and it’s becoming a problem

However like @mackembhoy has pointed out cricket in every format at every level not just test matches cricket is about playing the current game situation at that particular time.

Even the biggest fan of Bazball me included has to accept there is times they have read the game situation wrong and not adapted accordingly.

Brook in the last test match of the summer a classic example game in the palms of our hands.

Mind plenty times playing Bazball has won us games, several of them, where historically the game would have been a draw as their style has put more time into the game.

And still think the most successful sides in history of test cricket have been relatively attacking sides.

The ideal situation is getting the balance between attacking and careless.

It’s easier said than done mind but that’s what this side should be striving to do undoubtedly.

That said would much rather us take the attack to the Aussies than weakly surrendering to them like we normally do in an away ashes.
 
Voice of fair play said:
They definitely not arrogant imo, think that’s really unfair?

However without a shadow of a doubt they fully invested in the way they believe is best to win test matches.

Perhaps too invested and it’s becoming a problem

However like @mackembhoy has pointed out cricket in every format at every level not just test matches cricket is about playing the current game situation at that particular time.

Even the biggest fan of Bazball me included has to accept there is times they have read the game situation wrong and not adapted accordingly.

Brook in the last test match of the summer a classic example game in the palms of our hands.

Mind plenty times playing Bazball has won us games, several of them, where historically the game would have been a draw as their style has put more time into the game.

And still think the most successful sides in history of test cricket have been relatively attacking sides.

The ideal situation is getting the balance between attacking and careless.

It’s easier said than done mind but that’s what this side should be striving to do undoubtedly.

That said would much rather us take the attack to the Aussies than weakly surrendering to them like we normally do in an away ashes.
Click to expand...
A balanced view at last.
 
Voice of fair play said:
They definitely not arrogant imo, think that’s really unfair?

However without a shadow of a doubt they fully invested in the way they believe is best to win test matches.

Perhaps too invested and it’s becoming a problem

However like @mackembhoy has pointed out cricket in every format at every level not just test matches cricket is about playing the current game situation at that particular time.

Even the biggest fan of Bazball me included has to accept there is times they have read the game situation wrong and not adapted accordingly.

Brook in the last test match of the summer a classic example game in the palms of our hands.

Mind plenty times playing Bazball has won us games, several of them, where historically the game would have been a draw as their style has put more time into the game.

And still think the most successful sides in history of test cricket have been relatively attacking sides.

The ideal situation is getting the balance between attacking and careless.

It’s easier said than done mind but that’s what this side should be striving to do undoubtedly.

That said would much rather us take the attack to the Aussies than weakly surrendering to them like we normally do in an away ashes.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your last point, and most of them tbf. I’d like to see us taking the game to them and I like Bazball. However, part of “taking the game to them” has to include not getting out with a stupid shot. That’s giving the initiative back to Australia. It’s possible to take the game to them whilst leaving the ball.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, far from it. But some of the stuff they say does come with a tint of arrogance. Stokes said in his post-match interview last week “we won’t go to Canberra, we have a way of preparing that works for us”. That’s the same preparation that led to a 8 wicket defeat inside 2 days.
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
I completely agree with your last point, and most of them tbf. I’d like to see us taking the game to them and I like Bazball. However, part of “taking the game to them” has to include not getting out with a stupid shot. That’s giving the initiative back to Australia. It’s possible to take the game to them whilst leaving the ball.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, far from it. But some of the stuff they say does come with a tint of arrogance. Stokes said in his post-match interview last week “we won’t go to Canberra, we have a way of preparing that works for us”. That’s the same preparation that led to a 8 wicket defeat inside 2 days.
Click to expand...
There is a very fine line between taking the game to them and what is a perceived as a ‘stupid shot’

It’s far easier said than done!

Although I get the principle you and others are saying
 
It is arrogance, they've disrespected the fans who paid to watch that, and disrespected the opposition who then totally embarrassed England. Stokes and McCullum know best though, playing golf is better preparation than practicing red or even pink ball cricket (are they lazy too) former captains who dare question their methods are just has-beens. Plenty envisaged a 5-0 Aussie whitewash, not seeing anything other from this point. Can/ will they prove folks wrong.
 
DonaldDownTheWing said:
Stokes has hit back overnight saying he doesn’t think they’re arrogant and would rather be called rubbish than arrogant.

I don’t think they’re arrogant people, but the way they play cricket is, or can be, deemed as arrogant.
Click to expand...

What’s annoying is they aren’t rubbish at all (well with the exception of Crawley) so why even bring that up? They should demand better performances from themselves and keep their heads down
 
Voice of fair play said:
There is a very fine line between taking the game to them and what is a perceived as a ‘stupid shot’

It’s far easier said than done!

Although I get the principle you and others are saying
Click to expand...
That's a very pertinent point. The criticism is that Bazball doesn't appear to accept that there's a need for a balance. Any who put that argument were labelled negative and whingers. Pleased to see you've accepted the point.
England have won Ashes series in Australia prior to Bazball.
 
Parkside said:
That's a very pertinent point. The criticism is that Bazball doesn't appear to accept that there's a need for a balance. Any who put that argument were labelled negative and whingers. Pleased to see you've accepted the point.
England have won Ashes series in Australia prior to Bazball.
Click to expand...
People who put across rational and well argued points were not the ones labeled negative and whingers

The last 2 ashes before this one and plenty others we have been lambs to the slaughter.

To go there last time with openers like Burns and Hameed who put no pressure on the bowlers and just looked to defend was a bigger recipe for defeat than this approach.

But like you say we need to find the balance between the two, more than happy to accept your argument there mate that Bazball needs to adapt more at times
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
They definitely not arrogant imo, think that’s really unfair?

However without a shadow of a doubt they fully invested in the way they believe is best to win test matches.

Perhaps too invested and it’s becoming a problem

However like @mackembhoy has pointed out cricket in every format at every level not just test matches cricket is about playing the current game situation at that particular time.

Even the biggest fan of Bazball me included has to accept there is times they have read the game situation wrong and not adapted accordingly.

Brook in the last test match of the summer a classic example game in the palms of our hands.

Mind plenty times playing Bazball has won us games, several of them, where historically the game would have been a draw as their style has put more time into the game.

And still think the most successful sides in history of test cricket have been relatively attacking sides.

The ideal situation is getting the balance between attacking and careless.

It’s easier said than done mind but that’s what this side should be striving to do undoubtedly.

That said would much rather us take the attack to the Aussies than weakly surrendering to them like we normally do in an away ashes.
Click to expand...
Personally I thought Stokes was hugely arrogant when he dismissed critics of the Lords debacle as not understanding cricket.
 
Wood likely to miss second test due to knee injury

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top