Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2023

Team for The Oval, assuming everyone is fit, is likely to be this team with Tongue in for Anderson. Tongue showed fine form the other day for Worcs, where I presume he played on the final day under instructions from England. If Wood pulls up lame, I'd bring in Potts.

Sadly Jimmy Anderson may not get the finish he might have wanted. But that is very often the way.
 
Staying positive, I think this test has shown that England are learning to be ruthless while playing their new style. A three-day win was never on the cards, and given that, this was absolutely the best way to try to force a result. In the end, they gave themselves 71 overs to bowl Australia out, which was just about the best they could have done. Not a bad calculation, just bad luck.

I hope I'm right that they're adding this ruthlessness after reflecting on the loss in NZ and the loss at Edgbaston.
 
Petcha said:
No, THAT's why Jonny Bairstow shouldn't have been in the side
Click to expand...
Very few of the big decisions were actually straightforward. If he wasn't keeping, he'd warranted his place as a batsman. So, if they'd brought Foakes in, which I think they should done, there would have been consequences in terms of who to drop (particularly as Stokes is crocked as a bowler). I happen to think they should have declared at lunch yesterday, given the weather forecast - the logic of 'we need to get them out very quickly and can knock of any 4th innings runs needed in quick time'. I do think that, but then what would have happened if they'd fallen a few runs short after losing 10 minutes for the innings change round? I personally don't think they shouldn't have selected Anderson at all, but there was the outside chance he'd have one last hurrah, particularly at OT.

Maybe this series has been so intense and close that all of the captaincy/selection issues have assumed a greater importance than in a series where one team ran away with it. The one thing that I think was unambiguously wrong was the day 1 declaration.
 
It's been a very strange series. If you look at the averages, you'd think England were winning easily.

Aus bowlers have all gone for 4 runs an over or more and nobody is averaging under 29 (although nobody other than Boland has a strike rate of over 60 either). Their batters have been hit and miss, with Warner, Smith, Green and Carey from their regular top seven disappointing.

England have five bowlers averaging under 29 and seven averaging under 31, while they have six batters who've played every match and are averaging 34+, so aside from Pope, who only played two matches, just about the whole of England's top order is functioning well and nearly all of their bowlers have produced.

If, on average, just one batter and one bowler has a bad game per game, you're doing really well. If your side's bowlers occupy the top five positions in the averages charts, you're doing really well. Usually. Except that England are losing and now can't win the series.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It's been a very strange series. If you look at the averages, you'd think England were winning easily.

Aus bowlers have all gone for 4 runs an over or more and nobody is averaging under 29 (although nobody other than Boland has a strike rate of over 60 either). Their batters have been hit and miss, with Warner, Smith, Green and Carey from their regular top seven disappointing.

England have five bowlers averaging under 29 and seven averaging under 31, while they have six batters who've played every match and are averaging 34+, so aside from Pope, who only played two matches, just about the whole of England's top order is functioning well and nearly all of their bowlers have produced.

If, on average, just one batter and one bowler has a bad game per game, you're doing really well. If your side's bowlers occupy the top five positions in the averages charts, you're doing really well. Usually. Except that England are losing and now can't win the series.
Click to expand...

I think you're overthinking it. The baz/stokes axis and their emphasis on loyalty to selection eventually paid off with Crawley sure, but Bairstow and Anderson have been disasters.

I'm actually not too pissed off to lose to this Aussie team though as they have played their part in a compelling series, in good spirit. Alex Carey has been outstanding, and not just for being a keeper who understands the rules of cricket. I suspect he would have shrugged his shoulders and admitted he'd fucked up rather than the tanty shown by his opposite number and the nighthawk.
 
Fine, fine margins really. A couple of different twists of the cards and England could have been 4-0 up quite plausibly- not that it matters.

A lot of positives for England to take from the series despite the massive frustration of this weekend. Well, a win at the Oval to draw the series will be deserved.

Unfortunately Australia are just a little more ruthless at closing out victories when it matters, still. However this England team should have nothing to fear going over there for the next Ashes series. Australia are deserved world test champions and England have given them a real fright this summer.

This team is on the old side though and generational change is coming- Anderson won't go to Australia and Broad very likely won't. It also seems to be a wing and a prayer for Stokes in terms of fitness. We need to see some more young guys coming through in the next 12 months. Still big question marks over the opening pair, a reliable no. 3, and depth in the bowling attack (very much doubt Moeen will play beyond this summer). Whatever people think Bairstow has the backing of the management and I think rightly so. The days of the specialist wicketkeeper are over even in the five day game- there won't be another Bob Taylor, Alan Knott, or Jack Russell.

Normally utterly detest losing to Australia but this one just produces a shrug. Think the team have done pretty well on the whole and have just been unlucky in tight moments.
 
Wilf said:
Very few of the big decisions were actually straightforward. If he wasn't keeping, he'd warranted his place as a batsman. So, if they'd brought Foakes in, which I think they should done, there would have been consequences in terms of who to drop (particularly as Stokes is crocked as a bowler). I happen to think they should have declared at lunch yesterday, given the weather forecast - the logic of 'we need to get them out very quickly and can knock of any 4th innings runs needed in quick time'. I do think that, but then what would have happened if they'd fallen a few runs short after losing 10 minutes for the innings change round? I personally don't think they shouldn't have selected Anderson at all, but there was the outside chance he'd have one last hurrah, particularly at OT.

Maybe this series has been so intense and close that all of the captaincy/selection issues have assumed a greater importance than in a series where one team ran away with it. The one thing that I think was unambiguously wrong was the day 1 declaration.
Click to expand...
I can't criticise how England played this match. I thought they did the right thing by consolidating at the end of day two after Root fell. Could have squandered a dominant position, but instead they had Stokes and Brook there to control things in the morning. That morning, credit to Aus, kind of, for keeping them down to 5 an over. They batted on after lunch to get more easy runs, and let's not forget that with that forecast, there could easily have come a point when Aus could have put Starc on in gloomy conditions and caused an immediate end to play. England could at least control that aspect out in the field. I think England played smartly to give themselves 71 overs to force a result. It's just hard to beat a good team in three days and one session.
 
Why won't Broad go to Australia? What does the man have to do?

Also, we need white smoke over a chimney in the Vatican.
 
Petcha said:
I think you're overthinking it. The baz/stokes axis and their emphasis on loyalty to selection eventually paid off with Crawley sure, but Bairstow and Anderson have been disasters.
Click to expand...
Anderson is finally looking his age, sadly. It's hard to put a finger on it as his speeds are still consistently in the low-80s, which would be fine if he were getting significant movement, but for whatever reason, he isn't getting movement and the Aussies have mostly dealt with him comfortably.

But I don't think his selection was a disaster. All those dropped catches were disastrous (including a couple off Anderson), as was that stupid declaration. Anderson kept control at least so he wasn't a liability. But I don't see how he can play at The Oval.
 
WhyLikeThis said:
Match officially abandoned. Bollocks.
Click to expand...

As a kid, I have recollections of Rain saving us in the Ashes, and rarely feeling hard done by that rain cost us a certain victory, so I will happily wear the accusation of hypocritical whinging pom or whatever, but this is not a post of sour grapes.

There is a solution for future Ashes - and this is not like the solution isn't staring us in the face here - the reserve day that was implemented for the Test Final.

The Test final has its own context that its a culmination of a huge series of cricket in a single event (point of failure), but the Ashes are Crickets equivalent of the Olympics or Lions Tour. And, frankly, if we can do it for the Ashes, we can likely do it for them all, no (sorting out the Ashes first tho pls :) ) As a Sport wishing to have the most marketable 'product' and maintaining the fundamental desire for the result to be decided on sporting merit, and not fluke, weather, cheating or bad decisions (and that's before we accept that the whole game starts with a coin toss that gives one side a 20% or something advantage...) (or that its sport dependant on English Summer weather (and sometimes Aus tests suffer also) so the risk of sporting tragedy that we have witnessed today are not exactly benign), surely this should be something the ICC look into? If for no other reason than think of the seat revenue.

Some thinking to do around a minimum Overs lost - say half a day - as you want to have a strong bias for finishing the game on the original planned evening, but that's not exactly rocket science.

I shouldn't admit this here, but Ashes Cricket has a whole different meaning/interest for me. I'd almost compare it to England football tournaments (watch every second of every match) vs non-tournament games (qualifiers, friendlies) (haven't seen one in 30 odd years). It's an icon, and too important for the old amateurish refusal to modernise (especially since they can do allsorts to game formats if they want to).

Including a moratorium to replay the reserve day - effectively backdating the new structure - for any rain affected matches from, say 2020 onwards, I think would be fair ;)

I also don't know why other rivalries effective let themselves get second tier status by shitty 2 or 3 test series at sporadic intervals. How are we supposed to hate our opposition if we only have 2 matches to build up the animosity :oops:- and we can never close the series with the follow up date for the revenge mission?! Give the marketing men a bone here! All nations should have an 'Ashes' or 'Gavaskar Border trophy' where the events become their own tales of memorable sporting legend.
 
Ted Striker said:
As a kid, I have recollections of Rain saving us in the Ashes, and rarely feeling hard done by that rain cost us a certain victory, so I will happily wear the accusation of hypocritical whinging pom or whatever, but this is not a post of sour grapes.

There is a solution for future Ashes - and this is not like the solution isn't staring us in the face here - the reserve day that was implemented for the Test Final.

The Test final has its own context that its a culmination of a huge series of cricket in a single event (point of failure), but the Ashes are Crickets equivalent of the Olympics or Lions Tour. And, frankly, if we can do it for the Ashes, we can likely do it for them all, no (sorting out the Ashes first tho pls :) ) As a Sport wishing to have the most marketable 'product' and maintaining the fundamental desire for the result to be decided on sporting merit, and not fluke, weather, cheating or bad decisions (and that's before we accept that the whole game starts with a coin toss that gives one side a 20% or something advantage...) (or that its sport dependant on English Summer weather (and sometimes Aus tests suffer also) so the risk of sporting tragedy that we have witnessed today are not exactly benign), surely this should be something the ICC look into? If for no other reason than think of the seat revenue.

Some thinking to do around a minimum Overs lost - say half a day - as you want to have a strong bias for finishing the game on the original planned evening, but that's not exactly rocket science.

I shouldn't admit this here, but Ashes Cricket has a whole different meaning/interest for me. I'd almost compare it to England football tournaments (watch every second of every match) vs non-tournament games (qualifiers, friendlies) (haven't seen one in 30 odd years). It's an icon, and too important for the old amateurish refusal to modernise (especially since they can do allsorts to game formats if they want to).

Including a moratorium to replay the reserve day - effectively backdating the new structure - for any rain affected matches from, say 2020 onwards, I think would be fair ;)

I also don't know why other rivalries effective let themselves get second tier status by shitty 2 or 3 test series at sporadic intervals. How are we supposed to hate our opposition if we only have 2 matches to build up the animosity :oops:- and we can never close the series with the follow up date for the revenge mission?! Give the marketing men a bone here! All nations should have an 'Ashes' or 'Gavaskar Border trophy' where the events become their own tales of memorable sporting legend.
Click to expand...
I grew into cricket from about 1981 onwards - Botham, Willis, et all in the Ashes. But for me it was just one of many series, and not necessarily the best one (Aus weren't all that through the 80s). West Indies excited me more. Pakistan were great. And those teams got full five-test series as well (remember the 'Blackwash' 5-0 drubbing when England were lucky to get nil).

Today, that's not possible not least because there are more test nations. But it's also obviously unrealistic because of the rise of t20 - there is the horrible prospect of South Africa sending a reserve team to NZ next year because of that. :(

Given the schedules, I think reserve days are a non-starter. Tests are just too close together now. Tour matches have also gone out the window, and save for England, India and Australia playing each other, series lasting more than two tests could soon be extinct.

I've posted before about one way this could be addressed. England, Aus and India actually agree to play one another less - two series across five years rather than four. And all series in the WTC are staged over at least three match series rather than two over a 2.5-year cycle, not 2, with the final held alternately in the northern and southern Hemispheres. As part of that, all teams in the WTC play one another home and away over a 5-year cycle (politics permitting). (There's a bit of space there for extra matches against Ireland, Zim and Afghanistan.)

I've done the numbers and this would work, leaving space for the World Cup and some t20 nonsense in between. Each nation would play at least 9 tests per year.

But it would require some money-sharing by the 'Big Three' to make it viable. One big problem is the huge gap between the pay of the big three and everyone else - around 10 times more. One of the strange iniquities of this is that a team can beat England, say, and their match fee will be just 10% of the England players' match fees. You're not going to get equal retainers, as these are calculated as percentages of overall revenue mostly nowadays, following negotiations with player unions. But you could have equal match fees for all players in a series from both sides, with the richer association footing the bill when it involves one of the Big Three. In the scheme of things, it's not a huge amount of money for them - maybe up to a million a series extra (ticket sales for just one day at Lord's bring in far more than that). It would give a proper incentive to players from poorer nations to stay in test cricket and devote maybe half their playing time to it.

Regarding the point about a 2.5-year WTC with three-test series, that's my idea and I don't know if anyone is thinking along those lines. However, there is finally serious talk of equalising appearance fees or something like it. It has to happen to keep test cricket alive. Ashes series are only special for me as part of a wider picture with lots of other series in between. I've long thought that two series every 4 years is actually a bit too much. Two series every 5 years would be fine.
 
Anyway, 2 things come out of this test - things that losing fans tend to come up with, but are still valid. Firstly, on the lost time, they just need to be a bit more creative. A reserve day won't work for most series, but the odd 10.30 start or late finish to make up time, shouldn't be that much of a problem. Similarly, on TMS they were saying this morning when it look like play might start, why did they have to take lunch? Again, shouldn't be that problematic for players to get whatever scran they need say late morning. if they are off but facing a pitch inspection. A bit more flexibility around bad light too, not to the point where it endangers anyone, just a bit of common sense. And get the umpires to simply tell fielding sides to get the fuck on with it. Some of that gets a bit difficult to 'codify' but should be doable if there's will from the suits. Ah...

The other thing is the idea that the Ashes stays with the holder in a drawn series. That's problematic in that theoretically, you could end up keeping the urb for 20 years without ever winning another series. The answer to that is to stop calling it the Ashes and then just have a series, which could be drawn. That's not going to happen of course, so they should share the urn. Problem there is that the Bufton-Tufton's still keep the original urn in their museum. Ah...
 
Wilf said:
Anyway, 2 things come out of this test - things that losing fans tend to come up with, but are still valid. Firstly, on the lost time, they just need to be a bit more creative. A reserve day won't work for most series, but the odd 10.30 start or late finish to make up time, shouldn't be that much of a problem. Similarly, on TMS they were saying this morning when it look like play might start, why did they have to take lunch? Again, shouldn't be that problematic for players to get whatever scran they need say late morning. if they are off but facing a pitch inspection. A bit more flexibility around bad light too, not to the point where it endangers anyone, just a bit of common sense. And get the umpires to simply tell fielding sides to get the fuck on with it. Some of that gets a bit difficult to 'codify' but should be doable if there's will from the suits. Ah...

The other thing is the idea that the Ashes stays with the holder in a drawn series. That's problematic in that theoretically, you could end up keeping the urb for 20 years without ever winning another series. The answer to that is to stop calling it the Ashes and then just have a series, which could be drawn. That's not going to happen of course, so they should share the urn. Problem there is that the Bufton-Tufton's still keep the original urn in their museum. Ah...
Click to expand...
I really don't care who 'holds' the Ashes. A drawn series is just that. If England get a draw away from home, I call that a good result regardless of who won the thing the series before. A draw at home is disappointing but not disastrous. That Aus haven't won in England since 2001, a decade earlier than England's last win in Aus, is a something I care about and would like to extend. By the time they come back, there are likely to be players in the team who weren't born the last time Aus won in England. That's something that will please me.

We take our ridiculous pleasures where we can. :D
 
Wilf said:
Very few of the big decisions were actually straightforward. If he wasn't keeping, he'd warranted his place as a batsman. So, if they'd brought Foakes in, which I think they should done, there would have been consequences in terms of who to drop (particularly as Stokes is crocked as a bowler). I happen to think they should have declared at lunch yesterday, given the weather forecast - the logic of 'we need to get them out very quickly and can knock of any 4th innings runs needed in quick time'. I do think that, but then what would have happened if they'd fallen a few runs short after losing 10 minutes for the innings change round? I personally don't think they shouldn't have selected Anderson at all, but there was the outside chance he'd have one last hurrah, particularly at OT.
Click to expand...

Yeah there's always an element of hindsight in these things isn't there. I don't think many people were going 'Anderson shouldn't play' before the series tbh. A lot of people, including a lot of us on here, did say Foakes should play but equally we'd all have dropped Crawley to get him in and as far as this series goes at least Crawley has done really well. I do think the declaration on the first day was a bad move but even then if they'd bowled a little bit better in the last innings they should have had enough to get those last couple of wickets so I don't think you can look at it and say 'this is where it was lost'.
 
The first 2 tests were missing Mr M Wood esq and his 90+mph rockets, instead Robinson and his 78mph. Robinson is a good bowler with a happy knack of taking wickets, but I think the last 2 tests have highlighted that whatever the conditions for pure drama, theatre, unsettling batters whether top order or tail, you can't beat hostile and rapid bowling.

I know the very nature of fast bowling is fragile, but to me it's a bit of regret that we haven't recently seen Archer and Wood in tandem. Even if not in the same 11, being able to go through a series always with one of them fit and firing would be quite something. Sadly I don't think it's to be - have Tongue or Stone got another 5mph in them?
 
Zapp Brannigan said:
The first 2 tests were missing Mr M Wood esq and his 90+mph rockets, instead Robinson and his 78mph. Robinson is a good bowler with a happy knack of taking wickets, but I think the last 2 tests have highlighted that whatever the conditions for pure drama, theatre, unsettling batters whether top order or tail, you can't beat hostile and rapid bowling.

I know the very nature of fast bowling is fragile, but to me it's a bit of regret that we haven't recently seen Archer and Wood in tandem. Even if not in the same 11, being able to go through a series always with one of them fit and firing would be quite something. Sadly I don't think it's to be - have Tongue or Stone got another 5mph in them?
Click to expand...

Stone is in that genuine fast bowler category I think. Sadly he seems to be permanently injured - although Wood has had a late career flourish so maybe he can do similar. Tongue I don't think is quite as quick but definitely fast enough to be useful.
 
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
36K
Smangus
Smangus
Back
Top Bottom