Ashes 2025-26.

[andy]

Stokes isn't in any danger if he wants to carry on he will there's no obvious replacement....not so sure about mccullum though

[Arthur Crabtree]

Post-bazball, Brook is looking even less like a captain-in-waiting than he ever did.

[Durhamfootman]

Stokes will be okay

McC has to go

Key has to go

What seems clear to me is that England knew who their team for Australia was going to be a year ago.... which is good... clarity of purpose, but then they prevent those players from playing. Nobody played more than 1 CC match (a mere token) other than Gus, Crawley and Pope, so they knew who the weak points were likely to be. Atkinson was fairly new and got 3 games for Surrey, so presumably they wanted to see more of him. Crawley was under pressure enough to warrant 4 matches for Kent, whilst Pope played 6 for Surrey. They must have been really concerned about Pope if he got 2 more chances to prove himself than Crawley.

I think Crawley has done okay, without really justifying the faith put in him. If he makes another score or two in the dead rubbers, he might survive. Pope won't. They already prepared the ground by taking away the VC and gave him half a season to work on his failings, which are still evident.

Duckett is under pressure to perform, which surprised me, but then he'd only played 7 red ball matches all season leading up to Perth. It isn't a lot. Root has one score in the series, but otherwise hasn't showed his true class. Brook... same.... go through the team and none of the rest played a lot of red ball cricket and few have really performed. Pope will pay the price, but the rest might not. Doubtless the golfing expert who leads the obligatory post ashes debacle review will conclude that there is too much FC cricket in the county season, but really they don't play remotely enough appropriate cricket in the build up to these tough overseas tours. Everybody noticed that the start of the winter tour involved playing (lucrative presumably) white ball cricket. Only the dullest of dullards couldn't have seen this coming

According to the cricketer magazine, there are 6 county CEO's who are terrified of the ashes fallout. 'Strauss by stealth' I believe is their term for it, because they think their counties will be frozen and financed out of the FC game. I don't think so, personally, but they are clearly worried

[Durhamfootman]

I think all Brook needs is a good slap and a season of red ball cricket with England and Yorkshire to become a very fine test player.

Of course, if he still keeps charging down the pitch first ball, or getting the reverse ramp out at critical moments of test matches, then he won't be able to complain if he gets sent home

Then again, his entire test career has been moulded by culture of carefree, careless, don't matter hit it better next time, so maybe it wouldn't be surprising if he and England failed to get the most out of his career

[sussexpob]

Stokes isn't in any danger if he wants to carry on..

I can't think of anyone in my lifetime, in any sport, that seems to be more covered in teflon than Stokes. I had to listen to the TMS team the other day reminding us that Stokes was a legendary captain, and great leader of men. Where is the evidence of this? What examples of him elevating those around him at the most important moments are there? Because it occurs to me that this team have continually fallen short in all their key series, and much of that is to do with how the team approach series and the decisions they have made, both tactically and off the field.

The same people who proclaim Stokes a genius, tend to mock those that have recently passed. Cook was rubbish, Root even says himself he was rubbish. Before this test I heard Rob Key making negative remarks about Hussain's leadership in 2003, and Stokes directly made a comment about decisions Hussain made that tour in the pre-match press conference. The amusing thing was Key's main point of attack was the 11 day loss - I guess we can sum up Key's intelligence that he would slag someone off for something 2 days before a test in which the bookmakers had him at the very least matching that abhorrent record as a huge favourite. In fact, in Key's own words an 11 day loss in an Ashes is unacceptable disaster - so why would he accept this from any of his leadership team?

Cook's captaincy is worthy of derision, but Stokes is a genius? Come back to me once Stokes has won two Ashes series and beat India away, then we can talk.
Root is terrible? We beat a much better Indian side at home in 2018 under him, 4-1 I believe.... he also drew 2-2 at home to Australia and got thrashed away, so Root wins.
And you want to criticise Hussain? How many captains beat Sri Lanka at home with Murali at his prime? How many Captains beat Pakistan when they were still a world class team away. Ah yeah, and how many captains can brag they got a result away to India at the peak of the Fab 4 era? Steve Waugh's team had just lost to them. Ok, so his Ashes record was terrible, but he captain at the peak of statistically most winning side ever.

Australia right now are worse than any team any of these people faced - the results are no better.
India right now are the worst they have been since at least the mid-90s and in deep transition - the results have been worse
So we beat Pakistan, but in between both away series Pakistan beat their own historical record for losses in consecutive tests.... they stopped that record by being us 2-1.
So we beat NZ? The same team that have drawn back to back series vs BD and who have about 8 players who no longer can be arsed to play tests.

The quality of the lower end of test teams (and even the top tier) is historically low, and yet if Stokes loses the next test his win ratio record when ZIM/Ireland wins are taken out his padded record would be lower than Hussain, Lower than Cook, and only 0,02 percent away from Root.

Given the circumstances, his results speak for themselves. Similar performance given far more advantageous conditions.

Stokes should be sacked immediately, and he can take Key, Bazza, Tresco, Saker, Luke Wright and everyone else with him.....

[Gingerfinch]

Imo Stokes has done a fine job after the Root era. Yes this tour has been pretty shambolic but prior to this, we have have played entertaining Cricket and seen good results.
As for the players. Fair to say that some will be playing for their places!!!

[from_the_stands]

Obviously I'm very happy with the result, and would absolutely love to see a series sweep. What does worry me going forward is the next generation. Usually, I'd be excited about young prospects waiting in the wings, but I honestly can't think of any at this point in time. So if things seem a bit grim for England fans right now, it might be a very different story in a few year's time.

[Durhamfootman]

It's so easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the face of extreme disappointment, but it strikes me that the matches have been getting closer with each passing test. I wonder how a 2 test series in NZ, rather than an ODI/T20 series prior to Australia might have affected the outcomes. England hadn't played with a red ball since the beginning of August, so this is about preparation as much as it is about this player or that player, this shot or that shot. Poor preparation and prioritising revenue over performance.

For an ashes series in England, the Aussies wouldn't just rock up having played no red ball cricket for several months. A goodly number of the Aussie batters would be turning out for county sides early in the season to get used to the dukes ball and get everything moving freely ahead of the main event. Sussex would be getting criticised for playing Steve Smith into form, ditto Glamorgan and Marnus, Durham and Bancroft and there will be others.

Now that might change with the advent of the Hundred, forcing test series ever earlier into the titchy tiny gap between the end of the IPL and the start of the Stupid, but even then, there will surely still be a plethora of Aussie hopefuls giving themselves the best chance of a call up by plying their trade well in advance hoping to catch the eye of selectors. The England players can't just sign for Shield sides, so it's incumbent on the ECB to arrange the necessary prep and a 2 test series in the southern hemisphere might make a difference

[Arthur Crabtree]

It strikes me that the matches have been getting closer with each passing test.

Though this is what I expected, as the historic degree of difficulty at each venue evened out over the series. From the real England graveyard at Perth, to a DN at fortress-Gabba. To the Tests which looked more plausibly winnable.

I don't expect England will win either of the last two games, but it's more likely- even after the demoralising series loss- than getting anything out of Tests they almost always lose, badly.

Though it's possible that preparation was also a factor.

[sussexpob]

Imo Stokes has done a fine job after the Root era. Yes this tour has been pretty shambolic but prior to this, we have have played entertaining Cricket and seen good results.

The ECBs priorities are clear, they consider the big 3 test series as the key series, they have said it openly. So where are the good results you speak of?

We didn't beat India at home. India had lost the majority of their side in the space of a few months before the series, and were/are in deep transition. Their best averaging bat also had is toe broken half way through the series, and their best bowler couldn't play 2 games. This teams quality can be summed up by the fact it drew its own all-time record for consecutive home tests lost, which last happened in 1959, in series either side of playing England, and if that isn't enough, they also where whitewashed in both series. Worth noting that in the context of their cricketing history, two consecutive series losses at home is almost unfathomable - since 1986, they have only lost 3 total series before this year. Therefore this is a historically bad Indian side - we could not beat it.

Away to India....slaughtered 4-1. Can argue its tough... the Kiwi's followed us by dishing out a loopsided thrashing.

Home Ashes... didn't win it. Considering the fact Australia haven't won a series in 24 years in England, and have lost 4 in that time, a drawn series for England is a bad result. The modern day has favoured home teams to the point you should mathematically win them

Away to Australia..... shambles. Series over in the quickest time since 1921.... The lamest Ashes effort in 104 years. Historical failure.

After that, the ECB have arranged extra bilateral series vs two sides, Pakistan and NZ. We can take this voluntary arrangement on an understanding the cricket board see these are priority.

We lost our last series in Pakistan to a side that had just gone through the most consecutive test losses in history.... going to take some convincing its a good result. We beat them a couple of years before, but this was followed by them getting a regular pasting everywhere, so hardly feels in hindsight a useful win. And NZ... drawn series and won series. The won series came after the NZCB decided to award contracts to its players to pick and choose when they play, with the bowling attack weakened.

So, all in all we beat WI and SL, who the ECB can't even be bothered to arrange tours to they see it as such a priority. Shade NZ, drawn with PAK, and have been creamed over home/away legs against the two sides we put most importance on.

Its like trying to argue Arnie Slot is having a great season...

[sussexpob]

I also like the duality of the point; Stokes is an inspirational leader, but when it all goes wrong he's just a passenger being taken hostage by Bazza's bullsh*t ideas.

An inspirational leader does not idly watch by as his coach provides crap preparation. He does not idly sit by and accept terrible performances from his team. He doesn't accept the continuous terrible decisions made on the field in our approach, or just continue to follow someone elses ideas when they go wrong. He does not accept picking part-times, and not speaking out about bad decisions.

So take your pick ..... Stokes is part of these terrible decisions and has to take responsibility, or he is a meek leader who was happy to let someone set fire to his house without having the balls to speak out.

Neither conclusion saves his job.

[sussexpob]

Either way, it seems the client-journalism is back, so it wont matter. The mainstream press have gone from frothing at the bit for heads to roll, to suddenly very conservative criticism. Phil Tufnell broke first, launching into a defence of everyone after 3 tests where 60% of TMS social media output was him slamming a desk like Hitler in Downfall and demanding change.. and then, as the result closed in, suddenly going into a monologue that Bazza and Ben must stay.

Agnew, as always, wins - taking McCullum's admission he buggered up everything as a positive. Admission is the first step - he can just ignore the whole buggering up part in the first place. Blah blah.

The English press sound like an abusive husband asking their wives not to leave them.

[sussexpob]

Rob Key gives his debrief on the series loss finally, highlighting a number of failures. The most notable is the clear acknowledgement that England have failed in all their goals by not winning any of the landmark series they have played. Key also pledges an investigation into recent stories that Noosa turned into a "stag-do" with players drinking heavily 6 days straight after the Brisbane test, and an emerging picture of England having a heavy drinking culture - also giving details about Harry Brook and Bethell receiving an informal warning in NZ after they were caught boozing on the night before the 3rd ODI.

[sussexpob]

I have a feeling that all the leadership teams words in the last few days are nothing more than giving the press what they want to hear before the future of their jobs is decided, and that all these errors they now acknowledge were purposeful decisions made within the context of the culture they very much wanted to create. But assuming for a second that some of this is truth, it doesn't reflect well on any of them in the slightest.

You can't for instance express horror at a drinking culture and pledge to tackle it head on, and then once sentence later tell us two players in the team recently boozed up before an international game, and (a) you did not decide it was enough for an official warning and (b) both players concerned played in the following day, with one of them subsequently announced as vice-captain for an Ashes tour. So, what you are telling us is you strongly disagree with player doing that and will throw the book at those who do to stop a problematic culture taking hold, but in reality Brook was promoted a few days later to VC for the Ashes tour, so you infact rewarded his transgressions by making him a senior leader in the side? And in Bethell's case, how exactly do you expect to engender any form of professionalism and accountability in a 21 year old player like him if you don't take some form of actual stance against it? Imagine being Bethell.... you have a crap record, you have terrible form, you can't be bothered to play FC to improve, and in your 2nd winter as an England player you also do something unbecoming of a professional sportsman... and you get picked despite all of this, with no downside or punishment. Why on God's Green Earth would you change your ways or work harder?

This plays out in so much of what Key and others say. Noosa turned into a stag-do? Well, you have continually for 6 weeks told us the time away was necessary for players to let their hair down, and that relaxing and enjoying themselves was much more important than working on skills. You even told us working on skills and fitness before the 2nd test was counter-productive and was a cause of the defeat. And then all your players go and do exactly what you promoted for weeks, but somehow they were supposed to know what you really meant? And if you don't want the players drinking and partying, why decamp to a party town? What put the players in the proximity of that sort of thing then give them all loads of free time with nothing to do but be exposed to its temptations?

The same applies to the comments about the way we play. Key came out to criticise stupid shots, almost calling out Brook directly, but what did you expect? You can't use language like "run to the danger" and then expect rational, thoughtful approaches. England have continually defended the way they played when its failed, the coach and captain came out at the end of the last test to reiterate the team will always attack and look to dominate its opponent.... but this is not language that engenders responsibility. Surely at some stage they have to acknowledge that the optics and messaging contributes to these failures? Of course, I don't think there is any honest critique from the management taking place, and that they will stubbornly continue with the Tora Tora Tora approach, but if they indeed are suggesting the team need to pick and choose their battles more, then how can they expect to change the culture of slogging with that messaging. They at no stage ever criticise people for bad dismissals, defend their play because it works more often than not, etc etc.

I mean, 3 years ago McCullum even said directly that Zak Crawley could fail all he wanted because he won the occasional match. You wonder why this guy has been below par for so long and keeps making the same mistakes? Well, the bloody team management told him he didn't need to work on his game and that he could fail all he wanted. Where is the motivation to change? What bloody sense is there in coming out in public and giving a failing player a blank cheque to never be dropped? I could continue at this point endlessly, but its same story over different examples.

[Durhamfootman]

before the future of their jobs is decided