He almost got Cummins with a sneaky yorker, that would have been devastating. Robinson is the most unlikeable of the poms easily.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
In the end the wicket played it's part. Better than a 3 day test which is what we are likely to get if we get some real seaming decks.
Robinson for starters? C’mon man, next thing you’ll be applauding the way Chris Scott approaches the game!
I can definitely see the benefits of bazball, both the hype and the reality, but I reckon there is a fair dose of smoke and mirrors. Being aggressive for periods and aggressive declarations aren't new. Was it really that different from the 05 Egbaston test? In style I mean, obviously the result was incredibly similar. Poms bowling attack in 05 was fearsome, they'd kill for Flintoff, Jones and Harmison right now, genuine pace and swing, which resulted in aggressive playing mode.
Just did out of interest! About the same, Poms scored faster in first inns 05 v 23, slower in second 05 v 23, but not dramatically so in either case. Aussies about the same 05 and 23.
To be clear I don't fully disagree with your point, I just think there is a decent dose of hype, both in terms of what is actually happening and how sustainable it is. Hype isn't a bad thing.
Emblematic of the hype for me was the first inns Usman wicket. Yeah he was sucked in by a whacky strategy, sure, but he scored 140. There wasn't that much whackyness, at least not much that worked, apart from that.
They won't always get it right, and they didn't with Khawaja. It was telling that England bowled almost exclusively around the wicket to Khawaja, yet the stats (Nasser out them up) showed that Khawja was much more susceptible to the ball coming across him from over the wicket rather than around it. The way they got him out was well planned, but was late as the primary strategy to Khawaja was wrong IMO and something they need to go away after this test and revisit otherwise he has the ability to take the series away from us.
There is certainly a massive sense of irony, seeing Aussie cricket fans complain about smugness.
In this game they went at 5.04 in the first and 4.12 in the second. Below are the 2005 series run rates. Be very surprised if they aren't exceeded significantly in this series.
FYI they have scored at an average of 4.76 an over in the 12 tests before this one. In the year before McCullum they won 1 test and lost 8. Since they are 10 of 13. Amazing from basically the same group of players.
2005 Sewries run rates - granted they were facing McGrath & Warne!!
Test 1
1st - 3.22
2nd - 3.10
Test 2-
1st - 5.14
2nd - 3.49
Test 3
1st - 3.92
2nd - 4.55
Test 4
1st - 3.87
2nd - 4.10
Test 5
1st - 3.54
2nd - 3.67
Similar to my response to Carter above. I referenced Richmond too against what England are doing. Its actually very similar.
England has always been a reactive cricket team (the 2005 Ashes probably stands out as the 1 time we didn't but we had an amazing bowling attack in their prime at that point - as Australia did), that has primarily focused on "try to avoid losing" as opposed to "trying to win at all costs". Thats the biggest mentality change that has occurred. A lot of Aussie fans don't seem to appreciate how big a change this has been for the English team as Australia have been aggressive for a significant period (a lot of that has been created by the strength of the bowling attack which has always been a massive benefit to Australian cricket, rarely do we see Australia go into major series with average bowlers).
It shouldn't necessarily be seen as a massive change in International cricket (it is to an extent) but the biggest change is in English cricket itself. Gone are the dour openers that score at a strike rate in the 30's. In is the aggressive nature of both the batters and the bowlers, knowing that they will be supported for such an attitude.
Like I and you have mentioned, its not unlike Richmond of the last 6 years, we have embraced the positives as opposed to focusing on weaknesses (Dimma has spoken about this many times) and we are seeing a similar approach in English cricket, the likes of which have never before been seen in English cricket. Pietersen would have loved playing under this regime, he was seen as rash by many in England because of the style of shot that he would play, at times he was dragged down and suppressed from this style and from an English cricket perspective, he was ahead of his time.
This Bazball stuff is entertaining no doubt.
But interestingly Stokes went into his shell when the game was there to be won.
He lost his nerve and went back to very defensive fields i.e. So many men back for Cummins, even late in overs allowing him to keep strike.
First over of new ball, Broad bowling with only one slip to Lyon. WTF! Pretty much waiting for Australia to make a mistake, rather than trying to win it.
Then not utilising Anderson at all with the new ball in a scene made for him...WTF!
Goes against what Bazball is "supposed t be". That's what pressure does though.
Poms really need to move away with ordering (doctoring) flat pitches to protect the batting lineup from collapses against our attack. If not:
Broad - 44 overs this test already....
Anderson - a non event on these wickets and already losing his captains trust
Robinson - Still not fit (or threatening) enough to bowl long overs test in test out
Stokes - Could only get through 7 overs yesterday when he looked most likely to win the match for his country
Ali - Already showing how hard the step-up for the body (fingers) to red ball cricket is after years away.
There are no spin options of any repute in reserve and only Wood as a pace option who's body is more fragile than Leysy's.
Unless they risk losing a test or two easily with an inevitable collapse and give the above attack some respite on easier pitches (Marnus and Smith wont both be so quiet again) we will roll all the above into a ditch together by the back end of this series.
And Australia could well start steam rolling the series and win 4-1 ish. Or possibly more.
But interestingly Stokes went into his shell when the game was there to be won.
He lost his nerve and went back to very defensive fields i.e. So many men back for Cummins, even late in overs allowing him to keep strike.
First over of new ball, Broad bowling with only one slip to Lyon. WTF! Pretty much waiting for Australia to make a mistake, rather than trying to win it.
Then not utilising Anderson at all with the new ball in a scene made for him...WTF!
Goes against what Bazball is "supposed t be". That's what pressure does though.
Poms really need to move away with ordering (doctoring) flat pitches to protect the batting lineup from collapses against our attack. If not:
Broad - 44 overs this test already....
Anderson - a non event on these wickets and already losing his captains trust
Robinson - Still not fit (or threatening) enough to bowl long overs test in test out
Stokes - Could only get through 7 overs yesterday when he looked most likely to win the match for his country
Ali - Already showing how hard the step-up for the body (fingers) to red ball cricket is after years away.
There are no spin options of any repute in reserve and only Wood as a pace option who's body is more fragile than Leysy's.
Unless they risk losing a test or two easily with an inevitable collapse and give the above attack some respite on easier pitches (Marnus and Smith wont both be so quiet again) we will roll all the above into a ditch together by the back end of this series.
And Australia could well start steam rolling the series and win 4-1 ish. Or possibly more.
The Aussie team have rightly been criticized in the past for arrogance. Whats good for the goose...............
The new ball was doing nothing Leysy/. Nothing. Ponting made a great point, that it actually did little until after about 10-15 overs in every innings. That was the challenge. There was nothing in the wicket. Pointless having more than one slip. Agree they probably erred with the defensive fields but Cummins was swinging. I think they should have kept bowlking the short stuff at Lyon every ball, he is a compulsive hooker.
The reality is Stokes should have caught that hook off Lyon. Running with the ball catches are a hell of a lot easier than running into catch. It almost cushions the intial contact. It actually wasn't that hard a catch and in reality he should have gone two hands and landed on his back. I was shocked he dropped it. I'll bet he is priivately cursing that drop.
Whilst I don't agree with all of that (not sure why we would doctor a pitch to be slow, and then pick 3 seam / swing bowlers and not the genuine quick that we have - I think we would as surprised as anyone that the wicket was that docile), you comments on the new ball are spot on.
8 down, 2 bowlers in to bat. Still a fair way from the target and you are given the new ball. Normally with new balls, you generally expect 1-2 wickets in the 1st 10 overs which would have won England the game, but as you say for some reason we went incredibly defensive. Not really sure why, again you'd rather lose attacking than allow them to chip away at the lead which is what they did.
Dry run scoring up and set attacking fields, and Cummins would have had to attack more than he did, rather than drop the easy singles like he was doing.
I wouldn't say we have no spin options, I like Rehan Ahmed and would have played him in this series. Its a risk, but a genuinely talented leggie thats 18 and learning his craft, should be perfect for us, but we go back to Ali.
If Stokes was fit enough to bowl then I understand the 3 bowlers that we picked. The fact he clearly wasn't fit enough to bowl enough overs, shows that we made the wrong call, and Wood should have played, probably for Anderson. With the next one being at Lords, I'm not sure who we leave it (likewise the Aussies have an interesting bowling decision to make whether they bring in Starc or not).
My question was 'was it that different to the 05 Edgbaston test?' You said Check the run rates, of the Edgbaston Test, I did that, and to even my surprise, they were remarkably similar:
first innins England 05 - 5.14, 23 - 5.03
second inns England 05 - 3.49 23 - 4.11
first inns Aus 05 - 4.05, 23 - 3.32
second inns Aus 05 - 4.32, 23 - 3.04
There is no definitive difference there, there are elements you could put down to Bazball sure, slower Aussie rate is main one, but you could also put them down to the flat pitch or the different nature of the Poms bowling attacks, real pace and hooping swing in 05, v regulation middle pace in 23.
A lot of the hype, an I thought your point, were assuming the Poms run rate is through the roof, this suggests not really.
as for the rest of the series, lets see how we go, we can't compare yet.
