[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 1st Test, Birmingham, June 16 - 20, 2023

[Bodian]

If you buy the overall approach, there's not much point mithering about individual shots or decisions. Nobody scores 5 an over on the first day of a test match without cocking up sometimes.

And that's about it really. Stokes / McCullum have effectively said that they 'don't mind losing' - so long as it's a good game. (although obviously they would rather win).

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

And that's about it really. Stokes / McCullum have effectively said that they 'don't mind losing' - so long as it's a good game. (although obviously they would rather win).

The thing is, it's all aimed at winning. The entertainment and "let's sell everybody on test cricket" angles are valid but they're not really the point.
You tell people to take their best option at any given time, and try and detach that from the possible consequence of failure.
Similarly, when bowling and fielding, you try and maximise the chance of taking a wicket, while accepting that might mean more balls disappearing over the bowler's head.
Obviously as spectators we can say individual shots were daft or misguided, but I don't see any point in worrying about it when I'm too busy digging the team rollicking along at 4+ an over and they're winning more than they're losing.

 

[jcdenton08]

The thing is, it's all aimed at winning. The entertainment and "let's sell everybody on test cricket" angles are valid but they're not really the point.
You tell people to take their best option at any given time, and try and detach that from the possible consequence of failure.
Similarly, when bowling and fielding, you try and maximise the chance of taking a wicket, while accepting that might mean more balls disappearing over the bowler's head.
Obviously as spectators we can say individual shots were daft or misguided, but I don't see any point in worrying about it when I'm too busy digging the team rollicking along at 4+ an over and they're winning more than they're losing.

It’s a bit like the classic mantra of “do all the right things, and you win more than you lose”. Our record has been superb since the refresh, and sometimes decisions won’t come off, but if the mentality is to try and win every game it seeps through.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Game of opinions, agreed.

My view was that it's a beautiful batting track on possibly one of, if not the, best day to bat in series. Tomorrow it should be as good. I'd rather try and squeeze another 50 out of it and put them in early tomorrow.

The net result of a declaration for the sake of four overs is handing them possibly as many as 50 runs.

Anyway, it's all good fun and jolly good that bat n' ball is back.

50!? new ball was due in 2 overs and only Jimmy to come. Think 50 runs is a overplaying it somewhat for the sake of making a point.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It’s a bit like the classic mantra of “do all the right things, and you win more than you lose”. Our record has been superb since the refresh, and sometimes decisions won’t come off, but if the mentality is to try and win every game it seeps through.

I'd just like more cricketers/coaches to view it like that.
I remember when I was a teenager, of no great ability but I was into it, hitting the ball through cover on a Saturday morning practice and the coach telling me off for playing inside out.
Honestly, unless you're batting out a day against a proper swing bowler, why does that matter?
We'd get a lot more out of the game on every level, if we relaxed just a bit about it.

 

[Eeyore]

50!? new ball was due in 2 overs and only Jimmy to come. Think 50 runs is a overplaying it somewhat for the sake of making a point.

Root was comfortable and Robinson playing sensibly. Remember that the new ball is often a catalyst for an increased run rate. Especially on a pitch where there's been so little movement.

 

[jcdenton08]

I'd just like more cricketers/coaches to view it like that.
I remember when I was a teenager, of no great ability but I was into it, hitting the ball through cover on a Saturday morning practice and the coach telling me off for playing inside out.
Honestly, unless you're batting out a day against a proper swing bowler, why does that matter?
We'd get a lot more out of the game on every level, if we relaxed just a bit about it.

Well that’s it exactly, it’s good if it works. Hyypia did this mental thing with our fullbacks on the half way line as “intent” and we were getting smashed. It’s not like the guys are slogging themselves out, over 375 against Australia in the Ashes is a good innings no matter how it comes.

I love what Baz has done for the team and how the team play

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Root was comfortable and Robinson playing sensibly. Remember that the new ball is often a catalyst for an increased run rate. Especially on a pitch where there's been so little movement.

On a pitch with very little movement, the opportunity to effectively buy a wicket is worth more than a few more runs.
If it's that flat, then 450ish is probably about a hundred runs short anyway.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Well that’s it exactly, it’s good if it works. Hyypia did this mental thing with our fullbacks on the half way line as “intent” and we were getting smashed. It’s not like the guys are slogging themselves out, over 375 against Australia in the Ashes is a good innings no matter how it comes.

I love what Baz has done for the team and how the team play

If Brook had tried to hit the ball more, he might still be in.
They've a very good attack, sitting back and trying to grind runs out might lead to more sensible looking dismissals but there's no guarantee it'll lead to more runs, which is all that really matters.

 

[keaton]

Even with hindsight, knowing that we didn't get a wicket, I'd argue that the possible value of a wicket (and then Labushane having to effectively open tomorrow morning) significantly outweighs any runs we could have put on this evening and the first few overs tomorrow.
If we were only 5 down and had a reasonable potential to score a hundred plus more, then it's different.
After the first day of the Edgbaston test in 2005 Boycott said we'd left at least 100 runs out on the field after scoring 400 in about 80 overs. He was probably right as well, but nobody cared about that in the end.
If you buy the overall approach, there's not much point mithering about individual shots or decisions.

We had Root in, and a decent batter with him, and hitting their bowlers about. we could have got another 100. Even if not we could have done some damage to their bowlers confidence .You can play the attacking cricket without silly declarations

 

[keaton]

On a pitch with very little movement, the opportunity to effectively buy a wicket is worth more than a few more runs.
If it's that flat, then 450ish is probably about a hundred runs short anyway.

But then isn't that just extra runs we'll have to score in the second innings to win the game?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Root was comfortable and Robinson playing sensibly. Remember that the new ball is often a catalyst for an increased run rate. Especially on a pitch where there's been so little movement.

It was a bold move no doubt, but yes 2 batsmen may see the new ball flying about, but not a 10 & 11. Hypothetical, but that’s how they’re playing, that was their plan and you could tell from how they all were going for it that it was going to happen.

I loved it that they declared. It’s transforming test cricket. Rather than just being equations of runs and wickets, England play for time.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

We had Root in, and a decent batter with him, and hitting their bowlers about. we could have got another 100. Even if not we could have done some damage to their bowlers confidence .You can play the attacking cricket without silly declarations

We could have scored another hundred.
Root could have twisted his knee playing a pull shot and been out of the rest of the series.
There's no point playing hypotheticals based on the extreme cases, we would have scored at least a few more runs, we could have taken a wicket in the last few overs. As it happens we've got neither.
I suspect we are about 75 runs short and would have been well short of that even if we'd batted on. From that position, I value the opportunity to take an early wicket more highly than the chance to score more runs.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

But then isn't that just extra runs we'll have to score in the second innings to win the game?

Well a quick wicket today, maybe leads to more tomorrow and we bowl the aussies out for a hundred less than we might have done.
On the other hand having not taken a wicket this evening we might give up a 200 run lead.
It could have worked. We might still get a lead even though it didn't. But there's a reasonable logic behind it.

 

[keaton]

We could have scored another hundred.
Root could have twisted his knee playing a pull shot and been out of the rest of the series.
There's no point playing hypotheticals based on the extreme cases, we would have scored at least a few more runs, we could have taken a wicket in the last few overs. As it happens we've got neither.
I suspect we are about 75 runs short and would have been well short of that even if we'd batted on. From that position, I value the opportunity to take an early wicket more highly than the chance to score more runs.

But the taking the wickets tonight is hypothetical.
I don't see any point in choosing to more under par than necessary for the sake of 4 overs. Especially as everything about the Aussies ( other than Head) shows a team who'd be happy to be keep us in the field for two days grinding out dull runs.

 

[Eeyore]

It was a bold move no doubt, but yes 2 batsmen may see the new ball flying about, but not a 10 & 11. Hypothetical, but that’s how they’re playing, that was their plan and you could tell from how they all were going for it that it was going to happen.

I loved it that they declared. It’s transforming test cricket. Rather than just being equations of runs and wickets, England play for time.

I think they are transforming the nature of the game. And I have to say, even as a full on traditionalist, I think most of it is good for the game. What I do find frustrating is when some batsman, when set, throw their wickets away. Some may say that you cannot have one without the other. But these guys are experienced professionals. 90% of this new approach I like. I just wish it was the 10% of silliness they would get rid of. They would be even better for it. If that were possible.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

But the taking the wickets tonight is hypothetical.
I don't see any point in choosing to more under par than necessary for the sake of 4 overs. Especially as everything about the Aussies ( other than Head) shows a team who'd be happy to be keep us in the field for two days grinding out dull runs.

Any additional runs are also hypothetical.
The Australian batsman aren't significantly more likely to get out because we have an extra (lets say) 50 runs on the board.
On the other hand, they are much more likely to be dismissed when they start out, and declaring when we did doubles how many times we get to bowl at them as they arrive at the crease.
The problem, such as it is, is that none of our batters apart from Root turned their start into a major, match defining score. If they had done, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

 

[Seagull on the Hill]

Looks like there might be more cloud cover today.
Might make the ball swing a bit.
Plenty of showers forecast for tomorrow and Tuesday, not sure there will be enough playing time to get a result.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think they are transforming the nature of the game. And I have to say, even as a full on traditionalist, I think most of it is good for the game. What I do find frustrating is when some batsman, when set, throw their wickets away. Some may say that you cannot have one without the other. But these guys are experienced professionals. 90% of this new approach I like. I just wish it was the 10% of silliness they would get rid of. They would be even better for it. If that were possible.

Who threw their wicket away? Couple of poor but genuine shots I thought. Bairstow was trying to get on top of Lyon and was largely successful. Thought we rotated strike rather than attacked the boundaries. Didn’t think there was anything particularly rash until Moeen’s wild slash.

 

[A1X]

Damp, humid and cloudy at Edgbaston this morning. Surely they’re not going to get it to,swing after it’s gone gun barrel straight all of yesterday?