creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

Of course it's a nonsense. Without (this bit's important) wanting to throw anything out, we need to continue to refine it, because if it doesn't win, it'll have a fairly limited shelf life.

Last year, it'll have caught a few on the hop, in terms of counter strategies as people asked "are they just doing it this game" "this series/this opponent" etc. As it bedded in. But teams will develop counter strategies...

The Aussies have one objective. Win/retain the Ashes. As Warner pointed out a few too many gave their wickets cheaply and whilst there's an argument that it's much better than previous (which it is), previous atrociously bad idn't a good place to set the benchmark. I want to see how well it works v Aus home and away, India away etc.

But build and refine rather than throw out. It won't be considered any measure of success if we lose 5-0 at home to lose over here for the first time sine 2001 v Aus, including some pretty weak teams on our part, in that time.

I think there is a balance between 'don't say we've won based on some moral victory' and sticking to your guns and accepting that we might lose to the best side around at the minute.

For me a lot of the 'oh we need to adapt Bazball' things are either not really about Bazball or they sort of miss the point. Once you have batsmen fearing they need to stay in to anchor the innings the whole point has gone. If thats your game like Root you play it, if not play how you feel most comfortable.

I don't think Bazball had much to do with losing a narrow test. We were in a winning position but then bowled a bit strangely and didn't really maximise our chances. We also had dropped a load through the match and its not hard to think even 2 more catches taken and likely we'd have won. Stokes wanted to declare so again - is that really Bazball or just Stokes wanting to be aggressive?

But I'd also say that considering where we were to be running Australia so close is a miracle. Pre Baz and Stokes this series would have been horrendous. We'd have been beaten in 3 days.

I do though agree with the idea that scoring our runs fast is a good thing but Australia found a way to counter it. They have such an outstanding attack to be able to do so. Few other sides will. But we'll need to be able to adapt on our feet and still play our game but find ways across this series of modifying it when necessary. If Australia bat first and pile on 400 then even scoring quickly they have the wickets in them to knock us over and that places us in more danger.

[Prufrock]

Yeah, they just have such good bowlers they managed to consistently pick up the odd wicket and hang on. You didn't get a situation where you got a full hour or so of the middle order on full beans. But there's still 4 more. If they can do that all series or enough to win I think you just hold your hands up. They're test champions for a reason.

(All that not to say we shouldn't be learning and refining.).

[Worthy4England]

It turned on lots of little things, multiple times, for both sides, as tests invariably do. Their fielding wasn't exceptional 1st innings and they didn't even appeal when Crawley knocked the cover off it...It was a good watch. I think it's absolutely fair to say on another day we'd have won it.

I agree a lot of the adapt element is nothing to do with Bazball, but then again, I don't think Bazball exists. There's just test cricket and multiple ways to go about it, this just happens to be a bit more front foot, than the way most approach it, bearing in mind that Australia have typically been yesteryear's Bazball team, trying to score at set pace yadda, yadda.

In the final analysis, we neither got enough runs, nor enough wickets to win the game. As long as we fight with the same level of desire, it's fine by me (albeit that could be with Athers batting 5 days, like Khawaja did, to steer us home or through blasting them off the park)...

[BWFC_Insane]

It turned on lots of little things, multiple times, for both sides, as tests invariably do. Their fielding wasn't exceptional 1st innings and they didn't even appeal when Crawley knocked the cover off it...It was a good watch. I think it's absolutely fair to say on another day we'd have won it.

I agree a lot of the adapt element is nothing to do with Bazball, but then again, I don't think Bazball exists. There's just test cricket and multiple ways to go about it, this just happens to be a bit more front foot, than the way most approach it, bearing in mind that Australia have typically been yesteryear's Bazball team, trying to score at set pace yadda, yadda.

In the final analysis, we neither got enough runs, nor enough wickets to win the game. As long as we fight with the same level of desire, it's fine by me (albeit that could be with Athers batting 5 days, like Khawaja did, to steer us home or through blasting them off the park)...

I think there are two elements to Bazball.

1) Entertain. Don't be boring. Play hard.
2) Play your natural game and have no fear we keep picking you.

I think 2 is more critical to why we've found success. Bairstow has been exceptional from basically being a walking wicket cos we're no longer asking him to bat like a conventional test player. He can express himself as he does in the one day game. And suddenly we've got a player on our hands. Same goes across the team.

For me when 2 goes wrong is when Stokes decides he has to prioritise 1 and comes out trying to hit it. He's not that sort of player - he needs to get in.

[Worthy4England]

This is where I get confused a little. Entertain, don't be boring and play hard don't actually mean much, in the context of test cricket. I sort of get what you mean but it's still indeterminate for me. I would say I was entertained by Khawaja's efforts over 5 days. But I'm not a casual observer, who's just on a day out and I'm not convinced someone who didn't play week in week out, would have been similarly entertained...At what point does Khawaja's innings become "non-entertaining and boring" - I certainly think he played hard but by not giving his wicket away cheaply.

The Bairstow thing, not sure it's directly connected to Bazball at all (nor am I saying Bazball didn't help), he'd already had a couple of decent (and pretty quick) hundreds in Aus and WI, in late 2021 and early 2022, before Baz had come on the scene...His ton in Aus was at a similar strike rate as his two tons v India. His 2022 and 2016 stats aren't unadjacent. I'd be surprised if he didn't have his own hard work down for at least 60% of the deal. We had a player on our hands in 2016.

Natural game. All for it, as a generality. But you find that in tests, what you need to do and should do, isn't always a constant. Maybe if we're into batters 6 and 7, we might want to be a little more moderate on the new ball, than Crawley was when he opened - obviously it's circumstantial.

[BWFC_Insane]

This is where I get confused a little. Entertain, don't be boring and play hard don't actually mean much, in the context of test cricket. I sort of get what you mean but it's still indeterminate for me. I would say I was entertained by Khawaja's efforts over 5 days. But I'm not a casual observer, who's just on a day out and I'm not convinced someone who didn't play week in week out, would have been similarly entertained...At what point does Khawaja's innings become "non-entertaining and boring" - I certainly think he played hard but by not giving his wicket away cheaply.

The Bairstow thing, not sure it's directly connected to Bazball at all (nor am I saying Bazball didn't help), he'd already had a couple of decent (and pretty quick) hundreds in Aus and WI, in late 2021 and early 2022, before Baz had come on the scene...His ton in Aus was at a similar strike rate as his two tons v India. His 2022 and 2016 stats aren't unadjacent. I'd be surprised if he didn't have his own hard work down for at least 60% of the deal. We had a player on our hands in 2016.

Natural game. All for it, as a generality. But you find that in tests, what you need to do and should do, isn't always a constant. Maybe if we're into batters 6 and 7, we might want to be a little more moderate on the new ball, than Crawley was when he opened - obviously it's circumstantial.

Well I think some of 1 is about always trying for a result - even if that risks losing. Not just trying to bat out sessions but trying to move the game forward (obviously conditions dependent) and trying to take it to the opposition.

I think the thing about natural game is that too often we've ended up with players lost trying to 'do what they think they should do' as a test player and failing. I do think this is right. If you've got a hitter at 6 and then he comes in and you're asking him to spend 20 overs defending and knocking the shine off a new ball...they will fail and then lose confidence and then you drop them and try someone else and so on....the result is better - but will have scenarios where you say 'we lost that cos Ali came in and hit a quick 35 then got out - should have accumulated' but that's sort of it. We'll lose playing how we want to.

I don't think Bazball is about scoring 10 an over. If we had a team of Khawaja's we'd play differently. He'd still want it to be positive in what we did but just in a different way.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah. The coaching thing has been a problem going back to the 80's, where they lose the essence of the things that made them spot the player in the first place and try to replace them with something completely different.

[TANGODANCER]

England v Oz women's test match looks to be heading he same way as the male version. Big scoring from both sides (400 plus) and Oz leading by 10 runs after first innings. Apparently some poor bowling by the girls have let the Oz take a 82-0 second innings lead. Come on girls, get a grip of those kangarooettes.

[BWFC_Insane]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/crick ... aston.html

Daily Mail but I am pretty much in full agreement with this. Sums it up for me. If we’d let these people dictate to us we’d never have had a World Cup and ICC T20
Trophy.

[Worthy4England]

As with many Daily Mail arguments and wonderful Internet punditry, it distills the dialogue into "all for" vs "all against." There's us and them. It's rather more nuanced, for me.

I like attacking cricket. I think like most sports, you want to dominate your opponent (the Aussies have done the mental domination thing for years). When you dominate, you sort of earn the right to bring out your party pieces. But I also think, that you never stop trying to improve. That includes our current form of cricket.

The notion that folks should just not pass any commentary nor even discuss how that might happen, with the regressive "Ahh so you'd rather this shit thing we came from." Is as nonsensical as it is juvenile.

Had young Joe got out in exactly the same fashion in the run of poor results, no one would be saying "ahh well." It's entirely reasonable to question whether people can do things better.

I'm miffed we lost (as I suspect the players will be, deep down.) You don't get to England level by not having the desire to win. I can guarantee they'll look at what they could do better and differently. That's in the context of improve upon, rather than get on the 'phone to Silverwood.

I have still, rarely seen any batsman from Club upwards who didn't look at and review the way they got out. Sometimes they'd just make a mental note, they just made a wrong judgement call, others they might tweak technique. I recall one of our Pro's asking if I could do some private nets with every ball, full on middle and leg, because he was chipping them in the air, square. He didn't try to block it, just to improve the outcome of playing the shot.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah but that goes with whatever you are doing. Try and do what you are doing better. But that’s different to the people that article is referencing like Vaughan who go on about how they love Bazball cricket and giggle away at Root doing some extravagance then when he gets out start to say ‘well he should have just not played that attacking shot’. It’s easy to say ‘I just want us to do better and win’ but that’s somewhat a cop out.

We will make mistakes and not execute everything perfectly.

But the mentality and approach we’ve adopted is the right one no? And if we lose games against a better side that doesn’t change that fact.

[Worthy4England]

Fairly sure I've said I'm happy with approach. There is no cop out, anywhere, in saying "want us to do better and win" because I doubt any of our players are saying anything much different...

[TANGODANCER]

All a bit "much ado about nowt". Every side who ever played tried to win rather than lose. The days of the Geofrey Boycott "bore em to death" are long gone, and the Windies and Oz have been playing their versions of Bazz Ball for years, whilst we, the invenors of the game let our famous tradition rule our roost. The main problem has always been from areas populated by club tie decisions and not club captain ones. That, thanks to the Morgans and Stokes influences seem to have at last been put out to grass. The good things about cricket all happened long before V.A.R was even heard of.

All sport has suffered far too long from influencers, advertisers, agents ( kick them out first) and commercial speculators. Maybe a general clear out is needed all round.
"Howzatt?"

[Worthy4England]

It's a fair bit of Tosh, mate. 1981 Ashes, not exciting, attacking and full of incident?

The notion that the only way you can play this game is Bazball, I think comes from folks with short memories. The last drawn Ashes over here, full of incident, no one left early. Jack Leach played one of the great innings at Headingly as we chased down 360. With some great support from Stokes too. In Ashes terms, that was 4 home games ago...

[BWFC_Insane]

It's a fair bit of Tosh, mate. 1981 Ashes, not exciting, attacking and full of incident?

The notion that the only way you can play this game is Bazball, I think comes from folks with short memories. The last drawn Ashes over here, full of incident, no one left early. Jack Leach played one of the great innings at Headingly as we chased down 360. With some great support from Stokes too. In Ashes terms, that was 4 home games ago...

That game was an oasis in an absolute desert of abysmal.

We’ve seen positive front foot cricket before but I think the freedom and lack of fear that Bazball brings that marks it out.

We scored 400 in a day before. But had we been out for 200 that day no doubt people would have had the finger pointed at them and we’d have seen players left out and changed.

The difference now is that we won’t do that. It’s similar to how Morgan transformed the ODI stuff. Ending the cycle of fear of failure and consequences of that.

[Worthy4England]

Abosolute desert of abysmal? I think you're trying to be a parody of your own intransigence. It was an excellent 5 game series.

[BWFC_Insane]

Abosolute desert of abysmal? I think you're trying to be a parody of your own intransigence. It was an excellent 5 game series.

That series overall was an absolute brilliant but probably somewhat lucky win against the odds. A dead rubber (sort of win) whilst being utterly outplayed in the other three. If Headingley was the peak which it was - a win against all odds that shocked everyone I don’t think it says that much.

[TANGODANCER]

Mean while, the Oz bowlers are playing skittles with the ladies. Before tea England had a better then fair chance of a win. Now, at 116 for 5 it don't look too rosy. Little Danni Wyatt has saved them before...but..???

[Worthy4England]

Abosolute desert of abysmal? I think you're trying to be a parody of your own intransigence. It was an excellent 5 game series.

That series overall was an absolute brilliant but probably somewhat lucky win against the odds. A dead rubber (sort of win) whilst being utterly outplayed in the other three. If Headingley was the peak which it was - a win against all odds that shocked everyone I don’t think it says that much.

This shows the level of bollocks talked. We didn't win the series, it was 2-2. 5 tests, the other one we were outplayed in and won, was by 135 runs...

[BWFC_Insane]

Abosolute desert of abysmal? I think you're trying to be a parody of your own intransigence. It was an excellent 5 game series.

That series overall was an absolute brilliant but probably somewhat lucky win against the odds. A dead rubber (sort of win) whilst being utterly outplayed in the other three. If Headingley was the peak which it was - a win against all odds that shocked everyone I don’t think it says that much.

This shows the level of bollocks talked. We didn't win the series, it was 2-2. 5 tests, the other one we were outplayed in and won, was by 135 runs...

No that was the dead rubber after the Aussies had come and retained the ashes already. The Aussies weren’t then what they are now either.

We won the headingley test and a dead rubber.

The other three they were completely on top.