Ashes Inquest

[Fleagle]

The big difference, at least from what I watched, was that the Aussies chose the moments to attack better. Players generally looking to play themselves in and then up the aggression.

Chose might be a bit generous. Australia played sensibly in the first innings at Perth and conceded a first innings lead for the first time in a dozen matches when the ashes had been alive. England had it right. Then by the accident of Kawaja’s back they stumbled on someone who very much employed the charge at the guns strategy but got away with it/ did it better. And we never recovered.

The type of dismissals seemed to be a big point of difference too. More often than not the Aussies were getting out either to a good delivery or because they made a mistake. Far too often our players were getting out playing a dumb shot.

I’ll certainly give you that.

The difference in bowling attacks is stark too. We'd made it very clear for the last couple of years that we were going to go to Australia with the fastest attack we could. Pace was the only thing that mattered. The Aussies though brought a mixed bag of outright pace and fast-mediums who could hit a good length and move the ball around. Throughout the series they looked more threatening than we did more often than not.

We could have done the same. We have a county cricket system that has players in that mould putting up excellent figures, but not one of them ever even got a chance because they didn't fit the extreme pace plan.

But this. The bowlers were the difference. And the keeper and what the fact that they actually had one, and what that did to support the bowlers. Not just the extreme pace failures though. The others were found wanting as well. For obvious reasons our system generates bowlers who can bowl on English spring and autumn wickets with an English ball. For equally obvious reasons that’s fuck all use in an Australian summer.

 

[MustardAndOnions]

Chose might be a bit generous. Australia played sensibly in the first innings at Perth and conceded a first innings lead for the first time in a dozen matches when the ashes had been alive. England had it right. Then by the accident of Kawaja’s back they stumbled on someone who very much employed the charge at the guns strategy but got away with it/ did it better. And we never recovered.


I’ll certainly give you that.


But this. The bowlers were the difference. And the keeper and what the fact that they actually had one, and what that did to support the bowlers. Not just the extreme pace failures though. The others were found wanting as well. For obvious reasons our system generates bowlers who can bowl on English spring and autumn wickets with an English ball. For equally obvious reasons that’s fuck all use in an Australian summer.

Spot on

Carse shouldn’t have taken the new ball, that’s obvious, but his strike rate in the series was mint

He deserves credit for his attitude

Theres no bowlers like

We have a lot of serious batting talents about, I’ve no worries myself

But apart from this crop Theres nobody

Well actually the one bowler I think is good enough is Mahmood, but he just can’t stay fit, hopefully he can as he ages

I watch a lot of county cricket, as do countless people on here, who watch every Durham ball almost, i can’t think of anyone who missed out

You don’t need to be express quick if you’re accurate but you can’t be below 80mph. Bolland is quicker than nearly all bowlers in county cricket. People think he’s a Dobbler, he’s not

 

[smoker]

Go on then.

You couldnt name one

You think Ben Compton snd Sibley should play test cricket

I don’t mean to be personal, I mean tgis honestly, I don’t respect the cricket opinions of someone who thinks that

Whereas everyone hangs on the opinions of a gatekeeper and contrarian who thinks this squad is the best we could have selected when the evidence of our eyes and ears says otherwise?

I have been a massive backer of Matty over the years, after first seeing him in the RLC in 2018, but nobody who saw him bowl last season honestly thought he deserved selection for the Ashes squad.

Here's ten England qualified bowlers off the top of my head, in better form than Matty. Can't vouch none are injured:

Craig Overton
George Garton
Dan Worrall
Nathan Gilchrist
Sam Cook
Jamie Porter
Matt Fisher
Lyndon James
Jimmy Anderson
Tom Bailey

On what grounds do you think Sibley, with 1200 runs last season could have done worse than the chuckle brothers, given his better defensive game and the spicy wickets? There's no magic formula that makes someone a 'test player', it's about picking the right players based on skill, form and conditions.

 

[MustardAndOnions]

Whereas everyone hangs on the opinions of a gatekeeper and contrarian who thinks this squad is the best we could have selected when the evidence of our eyes and ears says otherwise?

I have been a massive backer of Matty over the years, after first seeing him in the RLC in 2018, but nobody who saw him bowl last season honestly thought he deserved selection for the Ashes squad.

Here's ten England qualified bowlers off the top of my head, in better form than Matty. Can't vouch none are injured:

Craig Overton
George Garton
Dan Worrall
Nathan Gilchrist
Sam Cook
Jamie Porter
Matt Fisher
Lyndon James
Jimmy Anderson
Tom Bailey

On what grounds do you think Sibley, with 1200 runs last season could have done worse than the chuckle brothers, given his better defensive game and the spicy wickets? There's no magic formula that makes someone a 'test player', it's about picking the right players based on skill, form and conditions.

those names are absolutely ridiculous mate
Ben Ducket averages over 10 more than Sibley btw

“Chuckle brother”
You can’t really think likes of Jamie porter can play test cricket?
Sorry I was probably too rude there. Well I defs was. So apologies.

I just don’t agree I guess.

 

[Lumley End]

So what is Carl doing these days? Maybe they shouldn't have paddled him if good ones are so hard to obtain due to 'franchise cricket'.

Well… that’s where the issue is. He now seems to be working for MI for all of their franchises.

 

[jcrossan]

The weird thing is that at the start of Bazball, they went old school with the selection of Leach - he can't bat or field, but he's a steady finger spinner who cam hold an end and will take wickets on a helpful pitch - very unbazball. Then, for some reason they decided that wasn't funky enough so picked some kid they saw on YouTube, bigged him up for 2 years before dropping him and making him unselectable.

Of all the stupidity in this tour that takes the biscuit.

Lad couldn't field or bat at all and seems to only have been considered because he was tall and young when seen on a video 2 years ago.

Yet stubbornly was persisted for a couple of ywars right up until it was test morning in Australia and only then finally figured he wasn't up to the task. Brain dead. And totally unfair to the lad himself.

 

[Fleagle]

Of all the stupidity in this tour that takes the biscuit.

Lad couldn't field or bat at all and seems to only have been considered because he was tall and young when seen on a video 2 years ago.

Yet stubbornly was persisted for a couple of ywars right up until it was test morning in Australia and only then finally figured he wasn't up to the task. Brain dead. And totally unfair to the lad himself.

To be fair, the height of stupidity would have been to pick him anyway after he had been twatted all over Allan Border Field by the Australian third eleven. But the whole episode certainly doesn’t reflect well on them.

Whereas everyone hangs on the opinions of a gatekeeper and contrarian who thinks this squad is the best we could have selected when the evidence of our eyes and ears says otherwise?

We can’t say the evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us anything about how those who didn’t play in the test matches would have played in the test matches. Because they didn’t play in the test matches.

We can reasonably say that the ones who might arguably be seen as next in line, those in the Lions team when it got even more heavily thrashed at the back end of last year, haven’t exactly provided such evidence. We can also say that about those who went four years ago and got even more heavily thrashed. Their time has passed. But the rest is just speculation.

 

[Voice of fair play]

As others have said it was the right thing not to play Bashir, personally think he would have been taken apart.

It was undoubtedly the wrong thing to pick him in the first place.

Yes we have little other options and don’t think any other spinner would have done much better.

But there was better spinning options than him.

those names are absolutely ridiculous mate
Ben Ducket averages over 10 more than Sibley btw

“Chuckle brother”
You can’t really think likes of Jamie porter can play test cricket?
Sorry I was probably too rude there. Well I defs was. So apologies.

I just don’t agree I guess.

Part of the reason the Aussies won was because their bowlers bowled a far more consistent line and length than us.

If Sibley was playing with his normal strike rate against county bowlers it would have been much worse against these lot.

He would have been given nothing, he may have left better than the other openers, but the way he plays would have meant imo a ball with his name on it on them seamer friendly wickets would be inevitable before he had scored 20 on the vast number of occasions.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[The Breen Machine]

As others have said it was the right thing not to play Bashir, personally think he would have been taken apart.

It was undoubtedly the wrong thing to pick him in the first place.

Yes we have little other options and don’t think any other spinner would have done much better.

But there was better spinning options than him.

Part of the reason the Aussies won was because their bowlers bowled a far more consistent line and length than us.

If Sibley was playing with his normal strike rate against county bowlers it would have been much worse against these lot.

He would have been given nothing, he may have left better than the other openers, but the way he plays would have meant imo a ball with his name on it on them seamer friendly wickets would be inevitable before he had scored 20 on the vast number of occasions.

Just my opinion of course.

That is a fair point but also one clouded in uncertainty. Where the likes of Duckett, Crawley, Smith, Brook and Pope usually would fall down is their lack of patience to wait for that loose delivery. In addition to that, Starc bowls such an attacking line and length that he can overpitch and his economy rate is usually fairly high. Green is quite shit.

 

[MustardAndOnions]

That is a fair point but also one clouded in uncertainty. Where the likes of Duckett, Crawley, Smith, Brook and Pope usually would fall down is their lack of patience to wait for that loose delivery. In addition to that, Starc bowls such an attacking line and length that he can overpitch and his economy rate is usually fairly high. Green is quite shit.

I’m not sure it was not with Brook and Crawley

Maybe the first test but most of the time they were out defending.

Duckett was always gonna have an issue with extra bounce, should have been worked on before hand and that was a mistake. I want hjm to attack tho that’s why he isn’t in the team and works on English wickets. Maybe someone with a different gear next to him might be ok

 

[Parkside]

If Sibley was playing with his normal strike rate against county bowlers it would have been much worse against these lot.

He would have been given nothing, he may have left better than the other openers, but the way he plays would have meant imo a ball with his name on it on them seamer friendly wickets would be inevitable before he had scored 20 on the vast number of occasions.

Just my opinion of course.

I certainly wouldn't be advocating a return for Sibley but the argument for a more traditional opener is that they would be better technically to defend the good seaming deliveries. It's less of a problem if Bethell can continue to deliver but all the batters,excluding Root, need CC games to hone their red ball defence in the less challenging standard of the CC.
Doubt if it'll happen though.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I certainly wouldn't be advocating a return for Sibley but the argument for a more traditional opener is that they would be better technically to defend the good seaming deliveries. It's less of a problem if Bethell can continue to deliver but all the batters,excluding Root, need CC games to hone their red ball defence in the less challenging standard of the CC.
Doubt if it'll happen though.

Even the Aussies didn’t go down that route they promoted their most attacking batsman to open with Head.

Not sure just looking to survive, leave the ball and been technically good is enough to be productive against top class international test bowlers on helpful wickets.

If you don’t look to score or rotate the strike a good ball will get you soon enough as too many of them

You have to be exceptionally technically good to play that way nowadays and don’t see that many if any.

There is very little of that type of opener nowadays in test cricket and even less successful.

 

[Parkside]

Even the Aussies didn’t go down that route they promoted their most attacking batsman to open with Head.

Not sure just looking to survive, leave the ball and been technically good is enough to be productive against top class international test bowlers on helpful wickets.

If you don’t look to score or rotate the strike a good ball will get you soon enough as too many of them

You have to be exceptionally technically good to play that way nowadays and don’t see that many if any.

There is very little of that type of opener nowadays in test cricket and even less successful.

So you advocate we continue as we are? We're going to get out eventually so let's just slog...
I never suggested or remotely inferred that they select an opener who wouldn't try to score or rotate. Any batter is extremely vulnerable against top new ball bowlers on helpful wickets but logically the better the technique the greater chances of survival.
Ok,maintain the status quo,Einstein had a quote about repeating the same mistake...
Mind he probably knew nowt about cricket...
But he'd probably know that the longer you survive the easier the situation becomes.

 

[Voice of fair play]

So you advocate we continue as we are? We're going to get out eventually so let's just slog...
I never suggested or remotely inferred that they select an opener who wouldn't try to score or rotate. Any batter is extremely vulnerable against top new ball bowlers on helpful wickets but logically the better the technique the greater chances of survival.
Ok,maintain the status quo,Einstein had a quote about repeating the same mistake...
Mind he probably knew nowt about cricket...
But he'd probably know that the longer you survive the easier the situation becomes.

There is a difference between the two.

In the first test on a clearly helpful wicket after looking to just survive in the first innings and getting out for 123.

The Aussies promoted Head and attacked the 220 to win

As they realised on that wicket looking to survive was wrong option.

and they actually scored a high rate throughout the series.

Just looking to survive just lets top class international bowlers settle into a constant line and length, you get nothing to score.

If you just look to ‘ survive’ more times than not you won’t.

You have to get the balance right and getting back to the point don’t think the likes of Sibley would be able to get the balance right at international level.

 

[MustardAndOnions]

I certainly wouldn't be advocating a return for Sibley but the argument for a more traditional opener is that they would be better technically to defend the good seaming deliveries. It's less of a problem if Bethell can continue to deliver but all the batters,excluding Root, need CC games to hone their red ball defence in the less challenging standard of the CC.
Doubt if it'll happen though.

I don’t disagree with this yeah but you need a very good technique to face high speed and ability to put balls away

Just don’t see hameed ans Sibley as viable options

Good players for sure just don’t see it

There is a difference between the two.

In the first test on a clearly helpful wicket after looking to just survive in the first innings and getting out for 123.

The Aussies promoted Head and attacked the 220 to win

As they realised on that wicket looking to survive was wrong option.

and they actually scored a high rate throughout the series.

Just looking to survive just lets top class international bowlers settle into a constant line and length, you get nothing to score.

If you just look to ‘ survive’ more times than not you won’t.

You have to get the balance right and getting back to the point don’t think the likes of Sibley would be able to get the balance right at international level.

The whole thing is complex and nuanced mind

I disagree with this attack v defence thing like

We basically didn’t do our research or adapt, you can attack in Australia a lot, but not driving on the up in Perth and Brisbane

Head stood deep in his crease and then just cut and pulled all day. He knows how to play in oz obviously but he knows how to attack

Just for balance head averages 30 outside of Australia, so he’s no different to a lot

I just totally reject we lost as we are attacking batsman who don’t value wicket etc. we just weren’t smart and didn’t adapt our batting

Stupid really.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I don’t disagree with this yeah but you need a very good technique to face high speed and ability to put balls away

Just don’t see hameed ans Sibley as viable options

Good players for sure just don’t see it


The whole thing is complex and nuanced mind

I disagree with this attack v defence thing like

We basically didn’t do our research or adapt, you can attack in Australia a lot, but not driving on the up in Perth and Brisbane

Head stood deep in his crease and then just cut and pulled all day. He knows how to play in oz obviously but he knows how to attack

Just for balance head averages 30 outside of Australia, so he’s no different to a lot

I just totally reject we lost as we are attacking batsman who don’t value wicket etc. we just weren’t smart and didn’t adapt our batting

Stupid really.

Yeah it just at times Duckett and Crawley approach is deemed very wrong by some.

But as a whole think their partnership as an opening pair been more productive.

Than when we had the likes of Burns, Sibley and Hameed opening.

Guess we need a perfect balance between the two technically better openers who can still keep the scoreboard ticking

 

[MustardAndOnions]

Yeah it just at times Duckett and Crawley approach is deemed very wrong by some.

But as a whole think their partnership as an opening pair been more productive.

Than when we had the likes of Burns, Sibley and Hameed opening.

Guess we need a perfect balance between the two technically better openers who can still keep the scoreboard ticking

Crawley had a nightmare first test looked duck out of water

Didn’t play that way rest of series

So don’t think it’s approach for him, he just got out and can’t keep the odd good ball out

I like Duckett like, it didn’t go his way but he needs backing, it actually takes balls to play the way he does, he probably needed a better game plan fo deal with the extra bounce and he didn’t attempt that, which is poor

I think South Africa away is a big series for him in winter

 

[Parkside]

There is a difference between the two.

In the first test on a clearly helpful wicket after looking to just survive in the first innings and getting out for 123.

The Aussies promoted Head and attacked the 220 to win

As they realised on that wicket looking to survive was wrong option.

and they actually scored a high rate throughout the series.

Just looking to survive just lets top class international bowlers settle into a constant line and length, you get nothing to score.

If you just look to ‘ survive’ more times than not you won’t.

You have to get the balance right and getting back to the point don’t think the likes of Sibley would be able to get the balance right at international level.

Do you read my posts? I'm not advocating the return of Sibley. Nor did I suggest you try solely to survive.
You've stated correctly about the lack of quality openers so you address that issue by working out why. Clearly we've always had quality opening bowlers, neither have the balls or pitches altered noticeably so it points to the technique of the batsmen. The emphasis on attack in white ball cricket and the restrictions on bowlers has resulted in correct defensive skills being neglected, lack of foot movement,soft hands,keeping a still head have become almost obsolete. These qualities need restoring and you'd re-establish effective opening partnership. Test cricket still has massive appeal in many cricket countries.
Yes,you've got to get the balance right between defence and attack,that's a skill in itself,apparentlynot valued nor recognised by the bazball brigade,both players and supporters.

Yeah it just at times Duckett and Crawley approach is deemed very wrong by some.

But as a whole think their partnership as an opening pair been more productive.

Than when we had the likes of Burns, Sibley and Hameed opening.

Guess we need a perfect balance between the two technically better openers who can still keep the scoreboard ticking

I wholly see the logic in the Crawley Duckett pairing -they're so completely contrasting in build and style they must be a nightmare to bowl to as a pair Again,gets down to the balance between attack and defence.

 

[MustardAndOnions]

Do you read my posts? I'm not advocating the return of Sibley. Nor did I suggest you try solely to survive.
You've stated correctly about the lack of quality openers so you address that issue by working out why. Clearly we've always had quality opening bowlers, neither have the balls or pitches altered noticeably so it points to the technique of the batsmen. The emphasis on attack in white ball cricket and the restrictions on bowlers has resulted in correct defensive skills being neglected, lack of foot movement,soft hands,keeping a still head have become almost obsolete. These qualities need restoring and you'd re-establish effective opening partnership. Test cricket still has massive appeal in many cricket countries.
Yes,you've got to get the balance right between defence and attack,that's a skill in itself,apparentlynot valued nor recognised by the bazball brigade,both players and supporters.

I wholly see the logic in the Crawley Duckett pairing -they're so completely contrasting in build and style they must be a nightmare to bowl to as a pair Again,gets down to the balance between attack and defence.

I just think people are forgetting the periid before stokes, I’d say through out roots captaincy and even beforr iy at times nobody scored runs, we tried all sorts of county pros and run scorers

We could never find an opening partner for Cook or a number 3, and had to move Bairstow and Mo Ali about to fill gaps

Robson, Lyth, Westley, Burns, Hameed, Sibley, Denly

There will be more. This is not aimed at you but when I see people online bemoaning the fact key n co ignore county cricket they just completely forget the selectors who didn’t and none of them even averaged over 30

Duckett averaged over 40 beforr this, pope close to 40, Brook 55, smith 40s, etc… so it’s clearly been a marked improvement in batting returns

I’m reluctant to return to the days of selecting the next off the cab as it didn’t work

 

[Parkside]

I just think people are forgetting the periid before stokes, I’d say through out roots captaincy and even beforr iy at times nobody scored runs, we tried all sorts of county pros and run scorers

We could never find an opening partner for Cook or a number 3, and had to move Bairstow and Mo Ali about to fill gaps

Robson, Lyth, Westley, Burns, Hameed, Sibley, Denly

There will be more. This is not aimed at you but when I see people online bemoaning the fact key n co ignore county cricket they just completely forget the selectors who didn’t and none of them even averaged over 30

Duckett averaged over 40 beforr this, pope close to 40, Brook 55, smith 40s, etc… so it’s clearly been a marked improvement in batting returns

I’m reluctant to return to the days of selecting the next off the cab as it didn’t work

Totally agree with your comments on the pre-Stokes era but I'm arguing that the finer skills required of openers has been lost owing to volume and emphasis of white ball approach. I actually acknowledge the logic of the choice of Duckett and Crawley as openers.It's that knowledge and balance between attack and defence that requires addressing with the current occupants.
The core of my post was how to address the absence of effective openers. Nothing wrong with next off the rank approach if the rank provides the requirements.