English cricket thread

Serious? Who was being serious?

Perhaps just pointing out that losing due to rain isn't as big an injustice as is being portrait. Piers obviously is a known drama queen but mirrors some of the general drama.


This pretty much sums up my thoughts. It was the same after the Bairstow incident.

To have the view that England fans aren’t allowed to be a bit pissed off at an almost certain victory being prevented by the weather is a bit strange, especially considering what was at stake.

I don’t think any normal cricket fans are “crying” or having a massive sense of injustice, it’s just a shame.
 

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. It was the same after the Bairstow incident.

To have the view that England fans aren’t allowed to be a bit pissed off at an almost certain victory being prevented by the weather is a bit strange, especially considering what was at stake.

I don’t think any normal cricket fans are “crying” or having a massive sense of injustice, it’s just a shame.

There's been an astronomical amount of moaning this time round though. It's getting tiresome.
 
we’re close enough to australia now. main difference is we’re still climbing the mountain, they’re falling down it.
 
There's been an astronomical amount of moaning this time round though. It's getting tiresome.

The thing which is genuinely most annoying about it is how deflating this is in the context of the series and interest in Test cricket.

I've never encountered so may people talking about test cricket and seeing it so accessible in pubs as this series. 05 was probably the last time there was this amount of buzz.

It's shite for the game that a top-class series is decided this way, regardless of who's playing/where your personal allegiances may lie.
 
There is nearly always one weather affected test in an ashes series in England. At the end of the day we have lost 2 tests it was always a monumental task to try and turn it around to win 3-2 and the weather is one of the reasons it's such a monumental task.

They did everything they could to set up the possibility of winning, playing some remarkable cricket in all honesty in what was always likely to be a shortened test. But Aus held firm and did just enough with the bat for the draw. Much like England in at the oval in 2005, also a weather affected test.

In the first two test, England dropped catches and gave away too many sloppy wickets. And really that's what it comes down to.

Yeah that sloppy nature we demonstrated in the first two matches is why I am so pissed off and just can't face the prospect of knowing if we win 5th test then Ashes was there for the taking
 
Last edited:
Yeah are you listening clowns at the ICC who are to stuck in their old ways to implement it
Reserve day concept is a stupid one with more hassle than its worth in grand scheme of things , how would it even work would tickets for reserve day be on sale and what about the broadcasting rights or other logistics arrangements . Not to mention additional days needed to be sneaked in for its worth is already packed schedule for Cricketers .
 
In general or about the weather specifically?
About the weather and it's effect on this test.

I get it must be annoying but it's part and parcel of cricket - who can forget this during a WC semi final no less:

 
About the weather and it's effect on this test.

I get it must be annoying but it's part and parcel of cricket - who can forget this during a WC semi final no less:



I'm not sure that using a game that directly led to a changing of the rules to make things fairer is actually helping your "deal with it because England benefitted from weather once" argument all that much.
 
I'm not sure that using a game that directly led to a changing of the rules to make things fairer is actually helping your "deal with it because England benefitted from weather once" argument all that much.
Yes, because that's an actual instance of how the weather led to an unfair situation.

England losing a day in a test because of a washout isn't unfair. But there's still a crazy amount of moaning from something that all teams are affected by across the globe in test cricket at some stage.
 
I think I'm more angry at Stokes for batting on so long just because of Bairstow 100. You knew the forecast was bad so needed maximum time to get them out. What happened to your mantra of we will chase whatever is required.
 
I think I'm more angry at Stokes for batting on so long just because of Bairstow 100. You knew the forecast was bad so needed maximum time to get them out. What happened to your mantra of we will chase whatever is required.

I think that's way over the top to be honest. A lower total and you'd probably have seen England need to bat again. If they'd got out for a couple of sessions yesterday, that would probably have been the case anyway.

The only thing I think people may have justified annoyance at is that England should have ended Australia's first innings earlier, and out first choice bowling attack didn't perform to the required standard.
 
I think I'm more angry at Stokes for batting on so long just because of Bairstow 100. You knew the forecast was bad so needed maximum time to get them out. What happened to your mantra of we will chase whatever is required.
I think that's way over the top to be honest. A lower total and you'd probably have seen England need to bat again. If they'd got out for a couple of sessions yesterday, that would probably have been the case anyway.

The only thing I think people may have justified annoyance at is that England should have ended Australia's first innings earlier, and out first choice bowling attack didn't perform to the required standard.
Stokes is a great captain and cricket player, but a couple of his decisions should come under massive scrutiny.

The declaration on day 1 at Edgbaston was such a woeful woeful decision. That cost you the game there.

Not declaring in this test was a dumb decision as well - a 2nd innings total of ~500 would have given England a good hour, hour and a half extra of bowling time. Who knows what would have happened, but you'd fancy them given the circumstances.
 
I think that's way over the top to be honest. A lower total and you'd probably have seen England need to bat again. If they'd got out for a couple of sessions yesterday, that would probably have been the case anyway.

The only thing I think people may have justified annoyance at is that England should have ended Australia's first innings earlier, and out first choice bowling attack didn't perform to the required standard.

I wanted us to bat again but instead we took the easy option and now Ashes are gone
 
Stokes is a great captain and cricket player, but a couple of his decisions should come under massive scrutiny.

The declaration on day 1 at Edgbaston was such a woeful woeful decision. That cost you the game there.

Not declaring in this test was a dumb decision as well - a 2nd innings total of ~500 would have given England a good hour, hour and a half extra of bowling time. Who knows what would have happened, but you'd fancy them given the circumstances.

Yeah that's the reason I am beside myself we have blown that chance at levelling the series
 
Stokes is a great captain and cricket player, but a couple of his decisions should come under massive scrutiny.

The declaration on day 1 at Edgbaston was such a woeful woeful decision. That cost you the game there.

Not declaring in this test was a dumb decision as well - a 2nd innings total of ~500 would have given England a good hour, hour and a half extra of bowling time. Who knows what would have happened, but you'd fancy them given the circumstances.

Couldn't agree more re Edgbaston.

Disagree this test - they were playing on a road and our bowlers hadn't really set the world alight first innnigs.
 
I think the Aussies have a point to be honest.

It's not necessarily the fans. It's the players. Constantly coming out with this Bazball mantra. Over. And over. And over. Sometimes it's better to just do something rather than constantly say it. It's a bit cringey. I'd rather us just do it and stick it to the Aussies by winning with such style rather than buzzwords and constantly implying we're trying to save test cricket. The moral crusade doesn't work for me, the result of entertaining and winning cricket does.

End of the day a loss is a loss and it's our own fault for terrible choices at the start of the series. We've played with an ability to win the series and handicapped ourselves.
 
Two less-than-Bazball factors:

1. Quality of wicketkeeping in the first test was also a significant contributor in addition to the strange declaration. Bairstow had several misses behind the stumps, whereas Carey made stumping after stumping off some bizarre batting.

2. Nathan Lyon's injury shifted the balance of the Australian bowling attack, rendering them far more blunt without him. It's telling that without Lyon's flight and guile, England's aggressive batting found greater control and sense.
 
I think the Aussies have a point to be honest.

It's not necessarily the fans. It's the players. Constantly coming out with this Bazball mantra. Over. And over. And over. Sometimes it's better to just do something rather than constantly say it. It's a bit cringey. I'd rather us just do it and stick it to the Aussies by winning with such style rather than buzzwords and constantly implying we're trying to save test cricket. The moral crusade doesn't work for me, the result of entertaining and winning cricket does.

End of the day a loss is a loss and it's our own fault for terrible choices at the start of the series. We've played with an ability to win the series and handicapped ourselves.

Superb post and stuff our media is too afraid to say. They would rather just hide behind the rain excuse as the reason we failed to win test. Was staggered England didn't show more awareness this was effectively 3 day test not 5 day one.

We needed to put the foot on throat in the evening session of day 2 which would have allowed a much earlier declaration on day 3. Didn’t give ourselves enough time to bowl them out when we had to win game.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because that's an actual instance of how the weather led to an unfair situation.

England losing a day in a test because of a washout isn't unfair. But there's still a crazy amount of moaning from something that all teams are affected by across the globe in test cricket at some stage.

It was 5 sessions not one day, and meant England couldn’t win the test from a position they were almost guaranteed to do so. Rotten luck, no more or less.

But I do get it now. England prevented from winning a test because of rain, not unfair. South Africa prevented from winning a one day game because of rain, unfair. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2. Nathan Lyon's injury shifted the balance of the Australian bowling attack, rendering them far more blunt without him. It's telling that without Lyon's flight and guile, England's aggressive batting found greater control and sense.

Yeah in reality in this series, besides Cummins, Lyon and a bit of Starc, England were dominated the rest of the Aussie bowlers. That's why Lyon's loss was magnified.
 
It was 5 sessions not one day, and meant England couldn’t win the test from a position they were almost guaranteed to do so. Rotten luck, no more or less.

But I do get it now. England prevented from winning a test because of rain, not unfair. South Africa prevented from winning a one day game because of rain, unfair. Thanks for clearing that up.
The rain lasted 10 mins and took South Africa from needing 22 runs off 10 to needing 22 off 1 in a WC semi final. It’s unlucky and unfair hence the change in rules.

England having a washout day happens across tests all over the globe throughout the year. It’s literally happening to India in the Caribbean which will hamper their WTC hopes. It’s part and parcel of a form of cricket that lasts 5 days.
 
The rain lasted 10 mins and took South Africa from needing 22 runs off 10 to needing 22 off 1 in a WC semi final. It’s unlucky and unfair hence the change in rules.

England having a washout day happens across tests all over the globe throughout the year. It’s literally happening to India in the Caribbean which will hamper their WTC hopes. It’s part and parcel of a form of cricket that lasts 5 days.

Yeah look mate, it’s fairly obvious why this one got more attention in England than a 2 test series that India are playing against a poor West Indies.

If you’re seriously suggesting that there wouldn’t be a similar discourse happening if you replace Australia with Pakistan and England with India, I don’t know what else to say.
 
Yeah look mate, it’s fairly obvious why this one got more attention in England than a 2 test series that India are playing against a poor West Indies.

If you’re seriously suggesting that there wouldn’t be a similar discourse happening if you replace Australia with Pakistan and England with India, I don’t know what else to say.
Discourse is fine. Incessant moaning by the English fans, players, media etc is tiresome.
 
This thread is quite clear how it wishes the many England supporters to behave.

If we lose, let's all discuss how brill the Aussies are and Bazballs faults.

If we win, talk amongst ourselves.

If we are robbed by rain, shut up. Don't mention it's a bit unlucky, that's tiresome.
 
Discourse is fine. Incessant moaning by the English fans, players, media etc is tiresome.

I'm very much of the view that you just have to accept the rain affects the match and there are a load of teams that have been affected by it in the past. I definitely however don't think the fans, media and certainly not the players have been that incessant about it particularly when you consider it's only been a day since the match officially ended.

I suppose if you go looking for it you will find the right amount of moaning to piss you off I suppose.
 
I think the Aussies have a point to be honest.

It's not necessarily the fans. It's the players. Constantly coming out with this Bazball mantra. Over. And over. And over. Sometimes it's better to just do something rather than constantly say it. It's a bit cringey. I'd rather us just do it and stick it to the Aussies by winning with such style rather than buzzwords and constantly implying we're trying to save test cricket. The moral crusade doesn't work for me, the result of entertaining and winning cricket does.

End of the day a loss is a loss and it's our own fault for terrible choices at the start of the series. We've played with an ability to win the series and handicapped ourselves.

I think there’s always an emotional pushback to anything England say because well it’s England and everyone’s sick of them telling how cricket should be played.

I think Bazball has shown it’s got plenty of substance to it, the test just gone was a perfect example of it growing up in front of our eyes. The sound bites coming from the team can be a bit odd on a surface level but I’m always struck but how much the players believe in what they are doing, it doesn’t matter whether they are actually saving test cricket or not (spoiler: they aren’t because it’s doomed), they clearly believe in this greater purpose as a collective and it’s not only helping them access a level that I didn’t think they collectively had in them but they’re also really enjoying how they’re going about it. It’s a bit like how Sir Alex would build a siege mentality during a season, it doesn’t matter if it’s actually true or not, they real value is in what it gets out of the players believing it. Everyone talks tactics/declarations when it comes to Bazball but that’s what really interests me about it is the psychology of it, it’s a lot subtler and smarter than people give it credit for.

Sure it’s frustrating that England don’t have much to show for it in this series but I think they’ve learned some very valuable lessons. It’s been interesting that the Australian view on Bazball has gone from, ‘oh yeah I’d like to see them try it against Cummins, Starc and Hazelwood’ to ‘ah yeah it’s fecking great but it didn’t win them the series and they said weird stuff (as if Australia would ever do that *cough* elite honesty *cough*), so ha’.
 
I'm very much of the view that you just have to accept the rain affects the match and there are a load of teams that have been affected by it in the past. I definitely however don't think the fans, media and certainly not the players have been that incessant about it particularly when you consider it's only been a day since the match officially ended.

I suppose if you go looking for it you will find the right amount of moaning to piss you off I suppose.

Exactly. At the point that first complaint about the “moaning” was posted yesterday I’m not even sure the game had been officially called off. There was a lot of reaction yesterday, which I think was just huge disappointment in the immediate face of the series challenge being ended in such a lame way, but the players seemed to take it on the chin and things have already largely moved on.
 
Exactly. At the point that first complaint about the “moaning” was posted yesterday I’m not even sure the game had been officially called off. There was a lot of reaction yesterday, which I think was just huge disappointment in the immediate face of the series challenge being ended in such a lame way, but the players seemed to take it on the chin and things have already largely moved on.

Yeah I think most England fans are understandably just processing their disappointment that we aren't all headed to the Oval with it tied up at 2-2. I don't blame them for being grouchy for a few days and if it really bothers you don't go chasing after it and having a moan.
 
Superb post and stuff our media is too afraid to say. They would rather just hide behind the rain excuse as the reason we failed to win test. Was staggered England didn't show more awareness this was effectively 3 day test not 5 day one.

We needed to put the foot on throat in the evening session of day 2 which would have allowed a much earlier declaration on day 3. Didn’t give ourselves enough time to bowl them out when we had to win game.

I'm not sure we could of put our foot on the throat anymore than we did. Scoring 597 in 107 overs at 5.49 an over in a test match against top quality bowlers and a team that went quite defensive quite quickly is remarkable. Even if we declared earlier we wouldn't of had the time to bowl them out or chase the runs. The pitch was good and the fact we lost 2 whole days between the weather and poor over rates makes it remarkable that the we even had a chance of a victory.

The only way England would of won in three days is if Aus compleatly fell over in a heap in one of there innings but the pitch was good and Australia batted enough time and put enough runs on the board to make that very difficult.

I'm not sure you can really be critical of England at Old Trafford they did everything they could and played very well to even give themselves a sniff of a victory. They needed a bit more luck with the weather but didn't get it.

Edgbaston on the other hand, yeah some silly decisions there. Bringing an under cooked Bairstow, Anderson and Ali into the side were without a shadow of a doubt costly mistakes. Bairstow was too rusty to play as a WK in such a huge test, he said himself he had not played as a wicket keeper in 3 years. Anderson had been injured in the build up and was very rusty And Ali hadn't played red ball cricket in god knows how long.


In all three it showed and that more than anything else cost England the first test and that's the one they really should of won.
 
Which aussies are saying Baz ball is the ducks nuts? I’m still trying to work it out. Ponting says it’s entertaining but how it’s been applied is fecking stupid at times. Gillespie is talking about how Cummins has played into England’s strategy.

Believe it or not, that Australian side from the early 2000’s was probably the best exponent of the theory. Langer and Hayden would take you for 120-130 runs in the first session and then Ponting, Hussey, Clarke and Gilchrist would tear you to shreds. Only Martyn and Waugh would anchor the innings if necessary.
 
Which aussies are saying Baz ball is the ducks nuts? I’m still trying to work it out. Ponting says it’s entertaining but how it’s been applied is fecking stupid at times. Gillespie is talking about how Cummins has played into England’s strategy.

Believe it or not, that Australian side from the early 2000’s was probably the best exponent of the theory. Langer and Hayden would take you for 120-130 runs in the first session and then Ponting, Hussey, Clarke and Gilchrist would tear you to shreds. Only Martyn and Waugh would anchor the innings if necessary.

The argument that aggressive cricket isn’t new or unique is correct but I think I don’t think it’s correct to suggest England aren’t on to something different to what we’ve seen before. The first thing that makes this clear is the quality of player we have seen in the historically aggressive sides, Zak Crawley is not Matthew Hayden and Ollie Pope is not Viv Richards and even with the stark difference in skill, the numbers stand out.

For instance, here’s a table of the top 25 test match innings completed of >300 runs filtered by runs per over:

Innings by innings list
TeamScoreOversRPOLeadInnsResultOppositionGroundStart Date
South Africa340/3d50.06.802862wonv ZimbabweCape Town4 Mar 2005
England657101.06.506571wonv PakistanRawalpindi1 Dec 20221
England524/4d82.46.333522wonv IrelandLord's1 Jun 20232
England447/3d78.05.733432wonv BangladeshChester-le-Street3 Jun 2005
New Zealand37065.45.633701lostv AustraliaChristchurch20 Feb 2016
England325/9d58.25.573251wonv New ZealandMount Maunganui16 Feb 20233
England592107.45.492752drawv AustraliaManchester19 Jul 20234
England36067.05.37312wonv New ZealandLeeds23 Jun 20225
Sri Lanka555/5d103.35.364652wonv BangladeshColombo (SSC)6 Sep 2001
West Indies301/3d56.35.323573wonv IndiaMohali10 Dec 1994
Bangladesh425/4d80.05.316613wonv AfghanistanMirpur14 Jun 2023
India410/177.25.30-2692drawv PakistanLahore13 Jan 2006
Pakistan302/557.35.2514wonv Sri LankaSharjah16 Jan 2014
Australia303/5d58.05.225103wonv South AfricaCape Town1 Mar 2014
West Indies344/166.15.1934wonv EnglandLord's28 Jun 1984
New Zealand44185.55.134411wonv Sri LankaChristchurch26 Dec 2014
England40779.25.134071wonv AustraliaBirmingham4 Aug 2005
Australia550107.25.125501drawv South AfricaAdelaide22 Nov 2012
Australia583/4d114.05.115831wonv West IndiesHobart10 Dec 2015
New Zealand432/6d84.55.092212wonv BangladeshWellington8 Mar 2019
South Africa569111.55.086313wonv Australia
Perth30 Nov 2012
New Zealand452/9d89.05.074521wonv ZimbabweHarare7 Aug 2005
West Indies45088.45.074501wonv EnglandLeeds22 Jul 1976
England37473.55.063933wonv New ZealandMount Maunganui16 Feb 20236
England393/8d78.05.033931lostv AustraliaBirmingham16 Jun 20237

England under Stokes/McCullum feature on there 7 times in basically a years worth of cricket. The great Australian side of the late 90s and early 2000s aren’t on the list. It’s pretty noticeable how many of these are post T20 cricket though.

And for a purer team vs team comparison.

Overall figures
TeamSpanMatWonLostTiedDrawW/LAveRPOInnsHSLS
Australia2000-200911579180184.38843.073.6620673593

Overall figures under Bazball
TeamMatWonLostTiedDrawW/LAveRPOInnsHSLS
England17124013.00039.524.8132657141

So England are on average being bowled out for 395 off 82 overs, whilst the great Australian side of the 2000s were being bowled out for 431 off 117 (that’s completely insane for a 10 year average by the way).

Really with the advent of T20, England with Bazball are the next logical development of test match batting, I’m sure if the great Australian side played T20 they would have scored even faster but they didn’t. This is different and there’s no point in pretending it’s not, even if it is England doing it and you feel it’s your duty to do so.
 
I think there’s always an emotional pushback to anything England say because well it’s England and everyone’s sick of them telling how cricket should be played.

I think Bazball has shown it’s got plenty of substance to it, the test just gone was a perfect example of it growing up in front of our eyes. The sound bites coming from the team can be a bit odd on a surface level but I’m always struck but how much the players believe in what they are doing, it doesn’t matter whether they are actually saving test cricket or not (spoiler: they aren’t because it’s doomed), they clearly believe in this greater purpose as a collective and it’s not only helping them access a level that I didn’t think they collectively had in them but they’re also really enjoying how they’re going about it. It’s a bit like how Sir Alex would build a siege mentality during a season, it doesn’t matter if it’s actually true or not, they real value is in what it gets out of the players believing it. Everyone talks tactics/declarations when it comes to Bazball but that’s what really interests me about it is the psychology of it, it’s a lot subtler and smarter than people give it credit for.

Sure it’s frustrating that England don’t have much to show for it in this series but I think they’ve learned some very valuable lessons. It’s been interesting that the Australian view on Bazball has gone from, ‘oh yeah I’d like to see them try it against Cummins, Starc and Hazelwood’ to ‘ah yeah it’s fecking great but it didn’t win them the series and they said weird stuff (as if Australia would ever do that *cough* elite honesty *cough*), so ha’.
Some interesting points.

I think I'm just a fan of "showing rather than telling" for the most part. The rhetoric that comes out of the England camp does come across as slightly preachy, but I have no doubt that you're right and they are completely adhering to the coach and captains ideas and that is having a positive effect on the mentality of the team and ultimately the playing level. There is certainly a level of buy in that you only see when there is exceptional leadership.

It's just slightly frustrating and annoying that for all the skill we have shown and the entertainment we have provided we have been undone by poor decision making at crucial junctures and abject catching. Which are really basic, fundamental things that are far easier than convincing a team to execute the brand of cricket they're playing and actually having the talent to do it against a good attack. I think you're right that deep down the Aussie players at the very least will have a healthy respect for what England have pulled off, particularly if we do level it up at the Oval. I think that's quite an important fixture for the overall perception of this series irrespective of the Ashes being retained. We really don't want to be going out with a whimper.
 
The weather at Old Trafford is good enough to allow not just live play in the match between Lancashire and Northants but the pacemen are allowed to bowl too!
 
England's biggest problem in this test was they had to take ridiculous levels of risk like a low declaration to try and force result. They thought it was possible to bat Aussies out of game and still win but just wasn't time unfortunately.

Like many have already outlined it has ultimately come down to the fact they couldn't win either of those first two tests. That unfortunately has led to weather being such a deciding factor in the end.