creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Worthy4England]

I think there's some confusion here. Runs scored v benign pitch. They don't necessarily correlate at all. For a start, the boundaries are different sizes and I have no idea whether the outfield is as quick, the ball isn't coming on great etc etc.. Last test Crawley didn't run himself out in stupid fashion. Just because the scores are lower doesn't mean there's much in it for bowlers...

[BWFC_Insane]

I think there's some confusion here. Runs scored v benign pitch. They don't necessarily correlate at all. For a start, the boundaries are different sizes and I have no idea whether the outfield is as quick, the ball isn't coming on great etc etc.. Last test Crawley didn't run himself out in stupid fashion. Just because the scores are lower doesn't mean there's much in it for bowlers...

Yeah that’s a fair point but I didn’t notice the ball jagging back in off the seam much in the last one. Whereas England took 3 Jaffa’s this innings with deliveries like that.

I’m not suggesting it’s not a good surface or whatever. But it has something in it (relative to the last one). Hasn’t broken up for the spinners like one might have thought.

[Worthy4England]

Whew..

[TANGODANCER]

Superb effort. Winning a hard fought match is far more rewarding than walk-overs. Well done Ben Stokes and the lads...

[BWFC_Insane]

Absolutely superb again. A brilliant test match that ebbed and flowed either side could have won and England just showing that the Stokes/McCullum direction is the right one. Yes it will come unstuck at some point but this was a classic situation where England adapted second innings to get a suitable lead they played the conditions and yes a few silly wickets meant they could have had more but they still put a total on that wins you the game far more often than not. And so it came to pass.

Its funny reading comments on the TMS feed. Seems like a lot of England Test Cricket fans really can't get behind a winning team. Look we are going to take risks, sometimes lose. We may lose to Australia who are probably a better team than we are. But we've just won 8 out of 9. Having won 1 in 11 or something horrific like that previously and looked the worst England side I can remember. We've now completely changed style and approach and its transformed us. Its stunning. And the whole 'oh we might lose the ashes' is the biggest pile of nonsense I've heard. We may well lose them. But we were 100% certainties to lose them with Root and Silverwood seeing as we basically lost test after test regardless.

England are 50 runs short of winning a Test match they were in control of. Naive and will be disastrous in the Ashes.

Good chase by Pakistan and they will win from here, but they shouldn't have been given a chance to - should have been a chase of 400 minimum. England's batting yesterday morning smacked a bit of hubris.

[Worthy4England]

We were having a similar conversation on here, bearing in mind England didn't declare in the 3rd innings, they got bowled out. It always looked like a pitch that wasn't deteriorating much in the 4th innings (which has just been the highest scoring innings in the match). There were always likely to be runs in it for intelligent batting. 250 - which was suggested - would have left us horribly short and with the time left in the test, another 50 runs would likely not have affected the possibility of a result, but in the end 355 was good enough.

That said, they got to 290 for 5 and in a fine margins game, that gives them every chance chasing 355, and had we only had 250 lead, they'd have won by 5 wickets.

Great effort from the team.

Bazball is winning and we're all (I assume) enjoying it. I am. It should never be an excuse for losing needlessly though.

[BWFC_Insane]

We were having a similar conversation on here, bearing in mind England didn't declare in the 3rd innings, they got bowled out. It always looked like a pitch that wasn't deteriorating much in the 4th innings (which has just been the highest scoring innings in the match). There were always likely to be runs in it for intelligent batting. 250 - which was suggested - would have left us horribly short and with the time left in the test, another 50 runs would likely not have affected the possibility of a result, but in the end 355 was good enough.

That said, they got to 290 for 5 and in a fine margins game, that gives them every chance chasing 355, and had we only had 250 lead, they'd have won by 5 wickets.

Great effort from the team.

Bazball is winning and we're all (I assume) enjoying it. I am. It should never be an excuse for losing needlessly though.

But I think the point is that England didn't spend their second innings trying to smash 8 an over. They did dial it down. They lost stupid wickets I agree but when doesn't that happen? Its cricket. Pakistan batted superbly last up to make a game of it and frankly I always felt it would be a nip and tuck 4th innings as England didn't look like batting them out of the game and there was so much time left on a slow wicket.

The point was that England were already 250 ahead which you'd start to say was competitive and had power to add and ended up with a 350 lead - a lead that should win you the game more often than not and it did.

But their 2nd innings wasn't really a case of Bazball meaning we didn't get enough runs it was a silly shot from someone overpromoted up the order to rest Pope and a couple of stupid run outs also some good Pakistan bowling. I don't think it was one where trying to score 6 an over meant we ended up well short. We got a decent score that could have been more if individual mistakes hadn't happened.

Any approach will lose games. We've spent years being dreadful trying to play test cricket in a manner that we clearly couldn't and lost time after time. Bazball will also see us lose games. But what I'm not seeing is the approach as yet having been responsible for issues where we might have lost. As some seem to be suggesting. I did see trying to play traditional test cricket with players unable to do so be responsible for a heck of a lot of losses.

[TANGODANCER]

I think this perfectly illustrates that finding a way to win is better than trying to explain all the method cricket ever. "Forward defensive stroke" is one of the very first things I remember about John Arlott saying commenting on Geofrey Boycott era cricket, but that seems so duckpond village green memory today. Like "the sound of leather on willow" time has marched on. The memories are fond, and historical now, but the game lives forever.

P.S. How many of you remember peg-leg cricket, six and out and a "donkey dropper" ball.

[Worthy4England]

We were having a similar conversation on here, bearing in mind England didn't declare in the 3rd innings, they got bowled out. It always looked like a pitch that wasn't deteriorating much in the 4th innings (which has just been the highest scoring innings in the match). There were always likely to be runs in it for intelligent batting. 250 - which was suggested - would have left us horribly short and with the time left in the test, another 50 runs would likely not have affected the possibility of a result, but in the end 355 was good enough.

That said, they got to 290 for 5 and in a fine margins game, that gives them every chance chasing 355, and had we only had 250 lead, they'd have won by 5 wickets.

Great effort from the team.

Bazball is winning and we're all (I assume) enjoying it. I am. It should never be an excuse for losing needlessly though.

But I think the point is that England didn't spend their second innings trying to smash 8 an over. They did dial it down. They lost stupid wickets I agree but when doesn't that happen? Its cricket. Pakistan batted superbly last up to make a game of it and frankly I always felt it would be a nip and tuck 4th innings as England didn't look like batting them out of the game and there was so much time left on a slow wicket.

The point was that England were already 250 ahead which you'd start to say was competitive and had power to add and ended up with a 350 lead - a lead that should win you the game more often than not and it did.

But their 2nd innings wasn't really a case of Bazball meaning we didn't get enough runs it was a silly shot from someone overpromoted up the order to rest Pope and a couple of stupid run outs also some good Pakistan bowling. I don't think it was one where trying to score 6 an over meant we ended up well short. We got a decent score that could have been more if individual mistakes hadn't happened.

Any approach will lose games. We've spent years being dreadful trying to play test cricket in a manner that we clearly couldn't and lost time after time. Bazball will also see us lose games. But what I'm not seeing is the approach as yet having been responsible for issues where we might have lost. As some seem to be suggesting. I did see trying to play traditional test cricket with players unable to do so be responsible for a heck of a lot of losses.

I don't think the point is Bazball, Boycottball or Baseball. It was all about how many we needed to set them in the 4th innings, given there was plenty of time left. Sure, within that, if we'd have gone at 1 an over to get 400, it might not have gone too well in terms of trying to get a result.

We got to a lead of 355 which proved to be enough, although maybe a little closer than we'd have liked for a bit of comfort. 250 was always going to be a risky amount IMO, given the conditions we were witnessing of it being a pretty flat pitch with very few demons in it, albeit, 250 is often enough in the 4th. I thought if they batted well and we missed a bit of luck, 250 always looked very gettable.

Within that, I I look at England's second innings, Crawley and Pope out to absolute suicide runs. Duckett (good knock) but when he got out, it was farmer territory along with Jacks. Jacks swipe had manure on it. Robinson all over the shop. Also Brooks who got 100, was dropped on 22 to an absolute dolly - That's probably the big difference in the end.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah but I don't think I said 'lets declare at 250 lead' it was just that anything above that England would be favourites and I also said whatever England's lead ended up being it would likely be nip and tuck. I think the issue I have is - England didn't go out and play recklessly and think a 200 lead was enough. They obviously worked to get a bigger lead and did. And it was some individual errors and good bowling that kept the lead down.

Had we lost the game I'd have said more down to a lack of a test quality spinner (lets be honest Leach is not it) than the runs we scored. Accepting that we could have scored more - but I suspect every test you can argue we could have got another 50 or 100 here.....there was even a period 1st test where some thought we didn't have enough!

I'm just arguing that they didn't run themselves out for laughs cos they were so overconfident it was just one of those things.

[TANGODANCER]

Ref individual errors, I feel that's too harsh a description. They exist of course, but they had a top class bowler, a home game on a a duck soup pitch and some fine work with the bat....and we still won. I find it hard to blame any of our lads for individual error in what was a fine victory. How good exactly do we need to be?

[BWFC_Insane]

Ref individual errors, I feel that's too harsh a description. They exist of course, but they had a top class bowler, a home game on a a duck soup pitch and some fine work with the bat....and we still won. I find it hard to blame any of our lads for individual error in what was a fine victory. How good exactly do we need to be?

There will always be individual errors in test cricket. I'd not lambast anyone for it unless they repeatedly do it. The run outs were poor but these things happen and aren't really deliberate. Every team will make errors all the time. Its about reacting to that. England did.

Lets give the young spinner a go next test as I think that's still our obvious weak spot. Find any sort of competent spinner and I'd feel we have a chance in the Ashes. A real chance.

[jimbo]

Amazing. Got up and they were 3 down. Had breakfast and got in the car and they were 9 down! Didn’t see that coming at all. Hopefully we can get ourselves up to 250 here which should be enough.

I feel the need to clarify here that my target of 250 was for the third innings rather than a lead. That would have left a lead of 329. Given they got 328, I’ve nailed it tbf

[jimbo]

More seriously, it was another great test match. I do think our methods will bristle with cautious traditionalists as per the comments on the BBC live feed above. I do think it’ll be very easy to criticise when we do lose and point to people getting out to ‘loose’ shots or daft field settings. We need to take the results as a whole though. We’ve done so well this summer and now in Pakistan. Before that we had Silverwood’s cautious approach and people getting out with tentative prods and cautiois field placings and cautiois declarations and we weren’t getting anywhere at all.

[Worthy4England]

We have indeed done well. I'm much happier than I was under Silverwood. I'm not sure it's "traditionalists" (as someone who once had his batting referenced as "like a thug" and could only really bat one way, back in the 80's.) So I'm absolutely in the school of if it's there to be hit, put it away.

But we were lucky in this test, and I'd rather have us creating our own luck, getting out to a tentative prod is no less out than getting out to a mow it from the ar*e - they both look the same in the book. So yeah, carry on please. But we shouldn't allow that to be an excuse for complete stupidity - the only two I'm really critical of, were the two run outs - they were as dumb as they come.

[BWFC_Insane]

Run outs weren't down to the approach though. Just poor judgement. The same poor judgement we could have were we batting like Boycott with a stick'o'rhubarb going at 2 an over.

Whatever way you play be it cautiously or with higher risk there will always be a case that you 'could have got more runs'. Be it scored faster when bowlers were struggling or not play such a risky shot and carry on batting. For a long time I've felt modern test cricket relies on generally scoring faster because the players are just setup that way, defences aren't as good and fitness of bowlers means its harder to grind teams down in the way teams did before. That's before we come to the fact that pitches simply don't deteriorate in the way they used to and in some cases seem to get slower and flatter over the course of a test.

I thought that was realistically the only way to go. Score faster and put pressure on the bowling side and make hay whenever you can with the bat. I didn't think England were good enough to do that but they have proven me wrong there.

Listen to the radio and after the first test they were saying 'we just have to accept this is a new game and adjust to it rather than criticise it'. Yet 2nd test they couldn't help start criticising. I genuinely think like Morgan and Bailey in ODI's the Stokes and McCullum revolution is just taking England to where test cricket stands now and making us one of the better teams at doing it. Its not about fancy dan modernising the game or 'ethos' its just looking at what it takes to win a modern day test match.

Across this test Pakistan batted for nearly 50 overs more than we did. They survived better. The real difference was that we scored quicker. Same as the first test. I'm willing to take a bet that England will win relatively few tests where that isn't the case.

[Worthy4England]

Yup, I said it wasn't down to approach (in general). I'm overall happy. When you look at the shots they got out to in the 2nd Innings (and the run outs), I can absolutely see why people might say "that was fcuking stupid". Let's be honest here, if we were losing and playing those shots, you'd almost certainly be amongst them.

I don't think the real difference this test, was down to how fast we scored. They hold Brooks dolly, and we're 85 runs less than we eventually accumulated, bowled out 180 with a lead of 260, which looked very gettable with decent batting.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yup, I said it wasn't down to approach (in general). I'm overall happy. When you look at the shots they got out to in the 2nd Innings (and the run outs), I can absolutely see why people might say "that was fcuking stupid". Let's be honest here, if we were losing and playing those shots, you'd almost certainly be amongst them.

I don't think the real difference this test, was down to how fast we scored. They hold Brooks dolly, and we're 85 runs less than we eventually accumulated, bowled out 180 with a lead of 260, which looked very gettable with decent batting.

I genuinely wouldn't because I don't think we did anything second innings that wasn't just 'a mistake'. If we'd come out second innings and tried to blast it round at 6's again and got out for 120 I think that's fair game to say 'look at the situation and adapt'. But I wouldn't have really been at them for run outs or the hoik because I think its errors rather than a mindset issue.

For me once you have that sort of lead you may still lose but I'd not criticise the batting too much. Like I say we're a genuinely good spinner away from me believing the ashes are a possibility. Perhaps I'm getting carried away but I see a lot of what Morgan and Bayliss did in what Stokes and McCullum are doing. It was desperately needed.

[Worthy4England]

We've certainly got a chance at the Ashes over here, which I wouldn't have said 12 months ago

[BWFC_Insane]

Lets have some fun. What's the Ashes team for the first test, if everyone is fit?

Cos this really is wide open.....

Lees back? Or stick with Duckett. I like Duckett I don't know enough about his ability in English conditions...

Crawley I assume will open.

Pope 3, Root 4 seems nailed on. Bairstow 5 if fit I assume. Stokes, Robinson, Anderson, Leach (if we can't find someone better).

Then its whether Foakes keeps or we ask Bairstow/Pope to do it. And if so do we throw in an all rounder like Livingstone, Jacks....do we add Potts in or Overton or (whisper it) Archer for extra variety in our attack? Does Wood get the final bowler slot or two of the aforementioned options? What about Broad? Stone? Does Parkinson get a chance? Or is Ahmed the wildcard?