Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2023

Just read this on the Guardian site, which seems to sum things up quite well:

So, what’s your camp? Some people are looking at the second day and saying that England stuffed it up, others think that it’s a decent position really and would have been a lot worse had the team from a couple of years ago been playing. Both positions have some merit. England will resume 138 runs behind, with captain Ben Stokes and new gem Harry Brook at the crease, and Jonny Bairstow yet to come. Those three could storm into a lead by lunch.

Or they could be all out.
Click to expand...

'Bazball' has certainly given them a confidence and an approach that produced great performances the last 18 months and might even have improved their performance against the Aussies. Gah... but could they not just insert a bit of common sense into it as well? That would have almost certainly given them a first innings lead, whereas I suspect they'll be looking at a match losing deficit around lunch time.

Or will there be another boy's own flashing 60 or 70 from Bairstow and a few more from Broad? That's the problem with the approach, it actually relies on those heroics.
 
Yeah, I think both points of view are true. England's positivity up to the point when Aus went for the short theory wouldn't have happened a year ago and they wouldn't have been 180-1. But they gifted Aus three wickets in quite a brainless fashion and it would have been four if Brook hadn't been dropped.

We've all criticised Crawley, but he played brilliantly against the quicks yesterday. Then charged Lyon and gave him another stumping. So his innings was a bit like that as well. Both good and bad at the same time.

It almost feels churlish to criticise, but England should have won the first test really and if they lose here, they might think they should have won this one as well. They won the toss and have had the better of the conditions. And now Aus are a man down. It certainly won't be bad luck if England lose.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yeah, I think both points of view are true. England's positivity up to the point when Aus went for the short theory wouldn't have happened a year ago and they wouldn't have been 180-1. But they gifted Aus three wickets in quite a brainless fashion and it would have been four if Brook hadn't been dropped.

We've all criticised Crawley, but he played brilliantly against the quicks yesterday. Then charged Lyon and gave him another stumping. So his innings was a bit like that as well. Both good and bad at the same time.

It almost feels churlish to criticise, but England should have won the first test really and if they lose here, they might think they should have won this one as well. They won the toss and have had the better of the conditions. And now Aus are a man down. It certainly won't be bad luck if England lose.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it's the nature of the game that you can always look at the shots people have got out to and go 'ooh they shouldn't have done that' but these are literally split second decisions and you're never going to be able to have all the scoring shots but just cut out the wickets. But I do think there have been a few times where they could have had just a little bit more balance in their approach in both games.
 
You can't have it both ways. The nature of the new approach is basically 'no regrets'. And it's worked. If three batsmen fail at least one or two seem to step it up, and at pace. They would have won the last match if it wasn't for fielding/bowling mishaps. And I'm liking their chances here. Particularly given that Garry is now crocked.
 
Not all wickets fall like Warner to Tongue's jaffa. In fact, most wickets are the result of batter error. Aus haven't actually prised out a single wicket yet.

And the 'no regrets' thing is all very well, but if you keep getting out to the hook shot, maybe stop playing the hook shot. If you keep getting out stumped to Lyon, maybe stop charging Lyon.

So yeah, both positions are true. England roared back into contention yesterday with a far better bowling display followed up by some inspired batting, particularly from Duckett and Crawley. But they could and should be even better placed if they'd been a bit smarter. Root was out to the short ball twice in 19 balls. He's better than that ffs.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Yeah I think it's the nature of the game that you can always look at the shots people have got out to and go 'ooh they shouldn't have done that' but these are literally split second decisions and you're never going to be able to have all the scoring shots but just cut out the wickets. But I do think there have been a few times where they could have had just a little bit more balance in their approach in both games.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's the context for those split decisions that's the issue. When they were the best part of 200-1 (can't remember the exact figures) they should have been in building mode. Whatever happened, the top 4/5 batters should have had getting close to Australia's total as their prime objective.

It's hard to know the balance between the overall philosophy, specific instructions and individual batters decisions. It just seems the mix was too gung ho yesterday, with the consequence that they may well lose again. As always itfeels a bit churlish saying this as they've done so well under Messrs. Baz and Ball, but it should ultimately be about adapting your approach to, err.... what's the word... oh, aye, that's it... win.
 
Petcha said:
You can't have it both ways. The nature of the new approach is basically 'no regrets'. And it's worked. If three batsmen fail at least one or two seem to step it up, and at pace. They would have won the last match if it wasn't for fielding/bowling mishaps. And I'm liking their chances here. Particularly given that Garry is now crocked.
Click to expand...
'No regrets' is a good, positive emotional approach. But that doesn't have to mean being reckless.
 
Wilf said:
'No regrets' is a good, positive emotional approach. But that doesn't have to mean being reckless.
Click to expand...

Well. As always I refer you to Dom Sibley blocking out what should have been a very viable run chase after a generous declaration from New Zealand. Which I think was the most depressing point of that particular era. No, I'd still rather have Duckett trying to knock it into the stands on 98.

It will be fascinating to see how Stokes goes about it this morning. He can't be completely deaf to the whinging that was inevitably going to come. Come out swinging?
 
Fucks sake Harry Brook. I get the positive batting stuff but you've got to look at the game situation once in a while. But then Stokes did do that and he got out anyway so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Throbbing Angel
Snooker 2023 - 24
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
280
Views
6K
stavros
S
QueenOfGoths
Cricket World Cup 2023
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
17K
Petcha
P
Numbers
Wimbledon 2023
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
DJWrongspeed
Tour de France 2023
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
355
Views
10K
stavros
S
Elpenor
Rugby World Cup 2023
63 64 65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
35K
Smangus
Smangus
Back
Top Bottom