creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[TANGODANCER]

I feel sick.

[Worthy4England]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

[BWFC_Insane]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

[Worthy4England]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

[BWFC_Insane]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

Yeah Cummings did well but we let him. Should have been new ball and Jimmy, Robbo and Broad bowling normally right line and length stuff they’d done all day.

If Cummings was good enough to knock off the 50 runs against that with tight fields then fair play.

But what we did was spread fields and invited him to build some momentum with a dead ball and then bowl bloody short stuff at them.

[Worthy4England]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

Yeah Cummings did well but we let him. Should have been new ball and Jimmy, Robbo and Broad bowling normally right line and length stuff they’d done all day.

If Cummings was good enough to knock off the 50 runs against that with tight fields then fair play.

But what we did was spread fields and invited him to build some momentum with a dead ball and then bowl bloody short stuff at them.

Frustrating. But we had enough in the tank and enough on the pitch, that on a different day, there would have been a different result. The constant back against, told you so, negativity is awful. I'd rather be dead.

[BWFC_Insane]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

Yeah Cummings did well but we let him. Should have been new ball and Jimmy, Robbo and Broad bowling normally right line and length stuff they’d done all day.

If Cummings was good enough to knock off the 50 runs against that with tight fields then fair play.

But what we did was spread fields and invited him to build some momentum with a dead ball and then bowl bloody short stuff at them.

Frustrating. But we had enough in the tank and enough on the pitch, that on a different day, there would have been a different result. The constant back against, told you so, negativity is awful. I'd rather be dead.

Eh? It’s not I told you so. We should have won with them 8 down and still needing 50 odd. We let it slip for me with some dodgy plans for the situation to bowl at their tail.

But it happens. We see this stuff happen. England are probably Jimmy with some form and rhythm and a fully fit Moeen away from winning this. Even with stokes hobbling about.

[TANGODANCER]

Over and done with. On with Part 2. A lot of plusses, couple of bad decisions, some mis fortune and..rain. Not blaming anybody, just how the cookie crumbles. Credit to Ozz for a good fight back.

[Prufrock]

The end was frustrating. Lyon and Cummins once you've taken the new ball I think you go Jimmy and Broad and conventional field. If they're good enough to knock them off fair enough.

What I will say is I thought one of the big things that had us in the game so long as Stokes' captaincy v Cummins. Think it got that wrong but broadly excellent.

Also think at some point we're going to go big enough they can't handle. But also can't see Smith and Labuschagne getting 40 in the match too often.

[BWFC_Insane]

The end was frustrating. Lyon and Cummins once you've taken the new ball I think you go Jimmy and Broad and conventional field. If they're good enough to knock them off fair enough.

What I will say is I thought one of the big things that had us in the game so long as Stokes' captaincy v Cummins. Think it got that wrong but broadly excellent.

Also think at some point we're going to go big enough they can't handle. But also can't see Smith and Labuschagne getting 40 in the match too often.

Yeah agree with this. The captaincy was superb until the last 10 overs. I think had we just bowled normally with field up they’d have struggled to hang in there.

But stokes got us there with superb captaincy it’s just a pity we couldn’t finish it off.

I think that result was critical and honestly can see Australia winning at lords now.

It’s a tough one to take as we’d put ourselves in there to win it and just let it slip.

Reverse of 2005 I guess.

[officer_dibble]

Meh we had a right go - predicted the weather and nearly did it. Jimmy and Stokes the bowler probably the most worrying parts at the end - and maybe missed our best wicket keeper as well….but I would pick Bairstow…!!!

[Worthy4England]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

Yeah Cummings did well but we let him. Should have been new ball and Jimmy, Robbo and Broad bowling normally right line and length stuff they’d done all day.

If Cummings was good enough to knock off the 50 runs against that with tight fields then fair play.

But what we did was spread fields and invited him to build some momentum with a dead ball and then bowl bloody short stuff at them.

Frustrating. But we had enough in the tank and enough on the pitch, that on a different day, there would have been a different result. The constant back against, told you so, negativity is awful. I'd rather be dead.

Eh? It’s not I told you so. We should have won with them 8 down and still needing 50 odd. We let it slip for me with some dodgy plans for the situation to bowl at their tail.

But it happens. We see this stuff happen. England are probably Jimmy with some form and rhythm and a fully fit Moeen away from winning this. Even with stokes hobbling about.

You backed your negativity from the off. Hedged your bets (reasonsbly). For once in your life!, I'd love to hear you back the win. We only need to have a peek over this thread to see the multiple times you've backed against, whilst advocating Bazball as a mantra. Just for once in your life, maybe back a team you support...

[TANGODANCER]

Cummins is an Ozzie Ben Stokes. A real display of leading by example. Can't help but be honest and say he nursed the side through a stormy sea and back to safe harbour. The Ashes has always been about pride, at least as far as true support is concerned. I served my supporting apprenticeship way back, (no doubt with a few on here) from the Bedser Twins, Len Hutton, Cyril Washbrook, Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Ian Bothham and all since (special mention for Sir James Anderson ) too many heroes to mention. May it always be so. It would be no fun if we won everything, would it..? The Barmy Army didn't start with Kevin Petersen tha knows...

[Worthy4England]

I think we need to look at a few things for the next test. For me, we felt a bowler light and certainly one a bit different from the three seamers. Think Wood has to come in.

Johnny did well with the bat, no so great with the gloves.

Mo's finger is clearly a problem, Stokes ability to bowl also. His 14 overs got two big wickets, but I think a genuinely fit to bowl Stokes, and we win the first test.

Obvs, thing is if you bring another bowler in, then I suspect one of Pope/Brooks has to sit it out. From first ball, it was a pretty well balanced affair. Onwards.

[BWFC_Insane]

Good, tight game of cricket. Lost in the margins. Immediate thought is that we probably underused Stokes the bowler. It's a bit of a problem. But there were so many "set points" and we didn't quite win enough of them.

He can barely run.

Stokes has just said we aren’t a results driven team and are more about providing entertainment.

I get that. But 8 down I really think we chucked it away.

Man, at 8 down, we're all probably thinking "we got this" Cummins stepped up, we didn't. That's tight cricket on the fine line. I'm nor I to excuses.

Yeah Cummings did well but we let him. Should have been new ball and Jimmy, Robbo and Broad bowling normally right line and length stuff they’d done all day.

If Cummings was good enough to knock off the 50 runs against that with tight fields then fair play.

But what we did was spread fields and invited him to build some momentum with a dead ball and then bowl bloody short stuff at them.

Frustrating. But we had enough in the tank and enough on the pitch, that on a different day, there would have been a different result. The constant back against, told you so, negativity is awful. I'd rather be dead.

Eh? It’s not I told you so. We should have won with them 8 down and still needing 50 odd. We let it slip for me with some dodgy plans for the situation to bowl at their tail.

But it happens. We see this stuff happen. England are probably Jimmy with some form and rhythm and a fully fit Moeen away from winning this. Even with stokes hobbling about.

You backed your negativity from the off. Hedged your bets (reasonsbly). For once in your life!, I'd love to hear you back the win. We only need to have a peek over this thread to see the multiple times you've backed against, whilst advocating Bazball as a mantra. Just for once in your life, maybe back a team you support...

It was just trying to reverse jinx a win. Nowt more than that!

I think we are a good side and I love how we play. We are all the better for it. Australia are the best side in the world for a reason. I think with fully fit bowlers who had played more cricket recently we’d have won.

It’s that fine a margin.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think we need to look at a few things for the next test. For me, we felt a bowler light and certainly one a bit different from the three seamers. Think Wood has to come in.

Johnny did well with the bat, no so great with the gloves.

Mo's finger is clearly a problem, Stokes ability to bowl also. His 14 overs got two big wickets, but I think a genuinely fit to bowl Stokes, and we win the first test.

Obvs, thing is if you bring another bowler in, then I suspect one of Pope/Brooks has to sit it out. From first ball, it was a pretty well balanced affair. Onwards.

Lords. So one assumes more suited to Jimmy, Broad and Robbo than Edgbaston was.

I think there’s a case for an extra bowler but I’m not sure who we’d leave out. Brook I guess. No chance pope will be left out. But that sort of impacts the batting balance.

Not so convinced that it isn’t that the thing we really need is a fully fit Moeen - holding down an end. I think we do need more variety on these flatter tracks but Lords usually rewards accurate fourth stump stuff more than anything.

[Worthy4England]

Yes, to hoping there's just a little more in the Lords track, and Jimmy by his own admission, maybe not at his best in 1st test, which he put down to "too few overs going in"

The problem that manifested for me in the last 20 overs was we decided to go short, and for the bowlers we had on that benign pitch, none of them are great at generating height from a fuller length. They all pull the length back. Benign wicket, batsmen have more time. I think both a fit Stokes or Wood can generate the lift from fuller deliveries.

If we assume the plan for tail involves short stuff to some, I think we need a fit Stokes or someone else who doesn't need to lose quite as many yards of pitch to get the ball above bllk height.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes, to hoping there's just a little more in the Lords track, and Jimmy by his own admission, maybe not at his best in 1st test, which he put down to "too few overs going in"

The problem that manifested for me in the last 20 overs was we decided to go short, and for the bowlers we had on that benign pitch, none of them are great at generating height from a fuller length. They all pull the length back. Benign wicket, batsmen have more time. I think both a fit Stokes or Wood can generate the lift from fuller deliveries.

If we assume the plan for tail involves short stuff to some, I think we need a fit Stokes or someone else who doesn't need to lose quite as many yards of pitch to get the ball above bllk height.

Agreed. I just don’t think that there was much need to go short. Not as much as we did. Even off his best would they have been able to hit Jimmy bowling with the new ball as he normally does aiming at off stump?

I just doubt it. The odd surprise short one too.

I do agree though that if we want to do that it’s crucial we have an option more suited to it…one of the issues though is that we don’t. Wood is more skids and bowls short spells.

Stokes is best at it but I look at his knee….that ain’t improving this summer in such a short space of time and I can’t see him doing much more than he did this test if even that.

If wood was more robust he’d play. If stokes was fully fit he probably wouldn’t need to. If Jimmy was on full form I think we’d have won. If Robinson had more cricket going in also.

Lords is a tough selection. I do think that. We traditionally lose there to the Aussies.

[BWFC_Insane]

I like Bazball and how its transformed our test team. I enjoy watching it. I think like anything we won't win everything and you take the rough with the smooth. But we're far far better off now than we were pre it.

And I can take 'well how we play is most important' stuff because they are trying to stamp a style on.

I can't really take the lines coming out that 'we felt like we won because we were the positive side and we were ahead and actually losing is irrelevant we decide if we won or not' stuff. That's nonsense. We lost an incredibly exciting test. If the argument is that we would do that again and again cos that's our beliefs then I can probably be fine with that. But pretending we did win really cos Australia had to play defensively is a bit.....early days Evatt.

[Worthy4England]

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.