creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Prufrock]

Robinson had looked relativelycomfortable and Root was going at 10 an over. It could have been all over in 20 mins, but equally could've stuck another 50 on and what looks a very good pitch.

New ball in 3 overs tbf though.

Idk. I wouldn't have done it but it probably won't determine the game.

Got visions of watching Smith and Labuschagne bat all day tomorrow.

[jimbo]

The declaration isn’t for me, but I can live with it. It didn’t feel like one of those evenings with gloomy skies at the end of a tiring day where a wicket in a tricky 20 minutes felt likely. At that point maximising our own total felt like the best way of winning the game to me.

[Worthy4England]

Just look at their wickets. Ben played a long way from his body, two fellas a long way down the track, Broad got one too good for Broad, Brooks was freakish and Duckett wasn't a great shot. They bowled some better balls that didn't get wickets.

We need to hope they play a lot of false shots too, because we weren't "bowled out" of our innings, we played some bad shots. And before we get on the cult of "that's how Bazball rolls" a bad shot is a bad shot.

It's been entertaining though.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just look at their wickets. Ben played a long way from his body, two fellas a long way down the track, Broad got one too good for Broad, Brooks was freakish and Duckett wasn't a great shot. They bowled some better balls that didn't get wickets.

We need to hope they play a lot of false shots too, because we weren't "bowled out" of our innings, we played some bad shots. And before we get on the cult of "that's how Bazball rolls" a bad shot is a bad shot.

It's been entertaining though.

If we didn’t play Bazball we’d have scored about 270 all out today.

The risk reward works for us. Bad shots happened when we poked it round and went nowhere.

People really hate it. People like Vaughan. Which I’d say makes it a massive plus the Mardy Yorkshire git.

[Worthy4England]

The declaration isn’t for me, but I can live with it. It didn’t feel like one of those evenings with gloomy skies at the end of a tiring day where a wicket in a tricky 20 minutes felt likely. At that point maximising our own total felt like the best way of winning the game to me.

Yes. Not sure there was much in the pitch to suggest that we are much better placed with 10-20 runs less and a 6 over dart, than just going at them tomorrow, given pre kick off we were suggesting it was a 500 pitch.

[Worthy4England]

Just look at their wickets. Ben played a long way from his body, two fellas a long way down the track, Broad got one too good for Broad, Brooks was freakish and Duckett wasn't a great shot. They bowled some better balls that didn't get wickets.

We need to hope they play a lot of false shots too, because we weren't "bowled out" of our innings, we played some bad shots. And before we get on the cult of "that's how Bazball rolls" a bad shot is a bad shot.

It's been entertaining though.

If we didn’t play Bazball we’d have scored about 270 all out today.

The risk reward works for us. Bad shots happened when we poked it round and went nowhere.

People really hate it. People like Vaughan. Which I’d say makes it a massive plus the Mardy Yorkshire git.

I enjoyed the day's cricket. It is not unreasonable to discuss it. Jesus wept.

[jimbo]

I’ve thought about it more while cooking tea, and while still anti declaration I can understand more why they’ve done it.

We need to take 20 wickets to win the match. Generally the easiest times to do that are the new ball, very end of the day, and the start of a new day. We’ve given ourselves a shot at capitalising on one of those periods that we otherwise wouldn’t have had. It didn’t pay off, but they obviously value those wicket chances more than the 20 or so runs we would have realistically added.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just look at their wickets. Ben played a long way from his body, two fellas a long way down the track, Broad got one too good for Broad, Brooks was freakish and Duckett wasn't a great shot. They bowled some better balls that didn't get wickets.

We need to hope they play a lot of false shots too, because we weren't "bowled out" of our innings, we played some bad shots. And before we get on the cult of "that's how Bazball rolls" a bad shot is a bad shot.

It's been entertaining though.

If we didn’t play Bazball we’d have scored about 270 all out today.

The risk reward works for us. Bad shots happened when we poked it round and went nowhere.

People really hate it. People like Vaughan. Which I’d say makes it a massive plus the Mardy Yorkshire git.

I enjoyed the day's cricket. It is not unreasonable to discuss it. Jesus wept.

I get that. But there’s an undercurrent from you that seems to be sneering at it a bit.

Yet it’s working for us.

Today I feel we are a little under par where we’d like to be but I think the Aussies bowled exceptionally well considering it’s a day one flat track pitch especially Lyon.

If we had tried to go at 3 an over I suspect we’d have ended up with lot less runs even with less risky shots mainly cos the Aussies have that knack of wickets and we aren’t brilliant at that sort of attritional steady batting.

It just feels to me like something that has turned round our fortunes gets far too little praise from some quarters. And it’s bound to not work sometimes and we are bound to lose some games. It’s just before it was hard to see us winning any match ever.

[Worthy4England]

I'm struggling how you go from "I enjoyed the day's cricket" to "sneering at it." I think it's been hugely successful and probably the largest influences on my moderate club career were attacking cricketers. If I discount games where stupidly chasing a result could have lost a League title or got us relegated, I wasn't in favour of trying to nurdle a draw, ever.

But. Nor am I starry eyed about it being the way all things should be, yet. I doubt it would garner the same results with some of the selections we had 12 -24 months prior. I'd like to judge it after it's performed at Saffers, Aus, India, West Indies away (and this series at home v Aus).

And even then, a dickhead dismissal will still be a dickhead dismissal, but that's not to say, I advocate not trying to throw the spinner off length by giving it the charge, but at least try and do it with enough nous to be broadly in the same county as the ball pitches. Otherwise you look a bit of a c*nt, whether you were on a ton when you did it or 10.

[BWFC_Insane]

I’d say though that if you are set on clobbering the spinner into row z then that dismissal is no more a dickhead dismissal than it is scratching round for half an hour before nicking off to the slips.

It’s only a dickhead dismissal if deep down you think they should be playing traditional test cricket and protecting their wickets rather than trying to hit boundaries and impose themselves.

If you think that the aggressive cricket they are playing is the way to go then surely it’s an entirely normal dismissal?

[Worthy4England]

I’d say though that if you are set on clobbering the spinner into row z then that dismissal is no more a dickhead dismissal than it is scratching round for half an hour before nicking off to the slips.

It’s only a dickhead dismissal if deep down you think they should be playing traditional test cricket and protecting their wickets rather than trying to hit boundaries and impose themselves.

If you think that the aggressive cricket they are playing is the way to go then surely it’s an entirely normal dismissal?

You seem to be assuming that this is some sort of higher purpose conversation around "To Bazball or not Bazball? That is the question."

But it's really not.

If I'd played Stoke's shot, or Bairstow's or Ali's, I'd have been gutted (and I'd be very surprised given they're at the top of their game if they weren't equally as gutted). Not because the option might have been a safe MCC coaching manual defensive shot, but because it got them out and a better execution of the same shot or a different shot selection, may not have.

Most folks who played at a reasonable level will question what they can do to improve against a great ball that snagged them. They're generally gutted if they have contributed to their own downfall. That doesn't mean they automatically go defensive, they try and work out how to execute it better. The reason great batsmen are better than 30 average batsmen is because they're better at not getting out!

[BWFC_Insane]

You can say that about any wicket. Usually a wicket is down to some form of poor choice or execution.

But those wickets all fell with batsmen playing the game they’ve been instructed to play. Yes they weren’t well executed but bar stokes they’d all executed similar shots previously.

Isn’t the game we are playing basically that exactly? Smash the bowling or get out trying? Isn’t that what they were doing to the letter?

[Worthy4England]

Do you think they'll have been happier with the down the wicket shot where they connected and it went for 4 or the one they missed that got them out?

It is not remotely controversial to suggest any decent player from Club cricket up will try and learn and cut out, the one that got them out in favour of the one that got them 4. Mulling how the you got out playing one drive, when the previous ball looked pretty similar and you got 4 for it playing and almost identical drive, is how you improve. I'm pretty sure, for all the guys, they'll look to work out what was different with the one that got them than the ones they dispatched. They certainly won't say "fck it, that's Bazball"

And no they're not looking to get out trying, they're looking to not get out whilst continuing to score runs at the sort of pace they're aiming for...

[BWFC_Insane]

But that argument goes for any wicket. Nobody is happy getting out. But they are under the freedom to play these shots. That’s the whole point of it. Play their natural game. If they get out they get out.

All I’m seeing here is that an aggressive shot getting you out is a ‘dickhead’ shot whereas if they’d just blocked a load it would not be.

They aren’t trying to get our but sometimes those dismissals will happen.

[Worthy4England]

Put the style (Bazball v not-Bazball) to one side for a moment - mainly because no one but you is saying it's to do with Bazball.

I think most people thought the pitch probably merited more runs than we got. Not a style conversation.

The pitch has delivered the least amount of seam and swing since records began. It contains few demons.

The Aussies bowled commendably in roughly the right places, they didn't actually get a lot of reward from some very good deliveries.

Irrespective of team instructions on how to play the game, there were poor shots in there to get out. Not all of them were gung-ho attacking. I think it might actually be the case that our current style also suggests defending where appropriate. Had they been played as we teetered rudderless to Notalot for 7, you almost certainly would have called them poor shots. A poor shot, doesn't need a conversation about playstyle, it stands on it's own merits. This is not a reason to consign our current style of play to the bin, it's just the sort of convo people have when someone is out.

To make our current excellent style of play, even better, we should cut out dick head shots that were unsuccessful as much as possible IMPORTANT BIT without losing the essence of what we are trying yo do overall. Back in the day, this just used to be called practice. So you don't say "Don't give Lyon the charge" you look at (and they absolutely will) how the one that got you was different than the previous three that didn't. That's just looking for an incremental improvement. Most players from Club upwards do this if they're looking to improve.

Please stop thinking this is some existential theat conversation for or against Bazball. It's not. I'm delighted with the last 13 months, it's been great. As with everything, if we can make it greater still, that's fine by me a decent example is there were plenty that got in and then got themselves out. It can't really be too controversial to look at how that could be improved upon, without suggesting in wonderful Internet style "Ahh you're not with us, so let's burn the witch"

[TANGODANCER]

And then of course, the basic rules of cricket apply; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk2_PMwGnUI&t=122s

[Worthy4England]

I stopped at the most runs you can score off a single ball is 6.

[TANGODANCER]

I stopped at the most runs you can score off a single ball is 6.

That's because it an Ozzie program and upside down. I's really 9 ...

[jimbo]

But that argument goes for any wicket. Nobody is happy getting out. But they are under the freedom to play these shots. That’s the whole point of it. Play their natural game. If they get out they get out.

All I’m seeing here is that an aggressive shot getting you out is a ‘dickhead’ shot whereas if they’d just blocked a load it would not be.

They aren’t trying to get our but sometimes those dismissals will happen.

The style is always going to be more high risk, but you’d hope over time that they’ll refine it and learn from the times it doesn’t work.

Stokes is a curious one for me. I’m not sure he’s suited to the way he’s playing at the moment. He’s always seemed like a relatively slow starter - explosive once he gets in, but all of his best innings have come after a steady start. I think that’s why he’s never been a top top T20 player. His innings yesterday is one to definitely learn from. I’d like to see him take 20 balls to settle himself before expanding.

[Worthy4England]

But that argument goes for any wicket. Nobody is happy getting out. But they are under the freedom to play these shots. That’s the whole point of it. Play their natural game. If they get out they get out.

All I’m seeing here is that an aggressive shot getting you out is a ‘dickhead’ shot whereas if they’d just blocked a load it would not be.

They aren’t trying to get our but sometimes those dismissals will happen.

The style is always going to be more high risk, but you’d hope over time that they’ll refine it and learn from the times it doesn’t work.

Stokes is a curious one for me. I’m not sure he’s suited to the way he’s playing at the moment. He’s always seemed like a relatively slow starter - explosive once he gets in, but all of his best innings have come after a steady start. I think that’s why he’s never been a top top T20 player. His innings yesterday is one to definitely learn from. I’d like to see him take 20 balls to settle himself before expanding.

Yup. Pretty much all I'm suggesting too. Stokes was a great example. It wasn't a "get out trying" shot. It was a shot where the best percentages on risk/reward were probably with the bowler. Style shouldn't obviate the desire to get better at it. No one will complain if Ben gets his nervy starts behind him then opens up.