Ashes 2025-26.

[sussexpob]

I have heard Stokes drone on endlessly for 2 weeks about how England have been planning for this series since the Big Bang kickstarted the birth of the universe, but to me this selection proves the counter. The press are trying to sell this idea as a tactical horses for courses pick, but are you really telling when England sat down pre-series and planned for this moment, they thought "I think Will Jacks has to play here"? A guy who has all but retired from FC format and is a part-time bowler? The guy who last time he was picked in this role was about bowled by other part time spinners in the side and not handed the ball? Ok, well lets just assume this is true. If England planned not to play a spinner in the first test and go with Jacks second test, then why was Bashir the player to change sides in the warm up to get him another innings under his belt ?What would be the point of that if he was not going to play?

Let's be honest, the truth is after endlessly backing Bashir they finally realised at the point of no return they don't like him. And yet, despite that, they picked ONLY him in the team. And despite that, they bowled him over Jacks more in the warm up. And despite that, they bowled 10 bowlers and gave Hartley one sole over in the first digs when they must have known at that point their trust had all but faded in the option they did pick, and he was the sole remaining spinner left in both squads.

It then gets worse when you consider the fact of who they took in the squad to be the all-round/batting back up..... Bethell. Remember the last time England sold the idea of picking a batting, part time spin option in the same role as touted for Jacks? You should, because it was at the Oval one test before Perth. Considering that role was given to Bethell, I must also assume they thought he was the better to fulfill the role. So what changed? It's at that point you realise that they also dont have faith in Bethell. He has lost that role after one test.

So we weird now have a scenario where the team have relied on taking one back up batter then cannot pick, who also functions as the all round back up, and have taken one full time spinner who they also will not pick.

Some incredibly bad planning

[andy]

I fully get what your saying and you make some valid points but yes I do think they ear marked a game or two for jack's....you don't take someone in a 15-16 man ashes squad and have them in a squad of 12 as well if your not expecting them to play at all it's a waste of a space in the squad....yes it might not make sense to people but to the guys picking the side yes I think they wanted him in for this game.....not saying it's correct but I'm saying I think they definitely wanted him in

[sussexpob]

I fully get what your saying and you make some valid points but yes I do think they ear marked a game or two for jack's....you don't take someone in a 15-16 man ashes squad and have them in a squad of 12 as well if your not expecting them to play at all it's a waste of a space in the squad....yes it might not make sense to people but to the guys picking the side yes I think they wanted him in for this game.....not saying it's correct but I'm saying I think they definitely wanted him in

There comes a time where all the bizarre reasonings England give for certain selections start to turn on one another, so if this is a plan, its not one that makes any rational sense.

We can deduce from the squad's England have picked this year, that Bethell is clearly seen as the next best batter not playing, and he has played 4-5 games recently filling in for others dropping out. England have been very vocal on how much they rate him, and we have been invited to consider him a generational prospect. His form doesn't matter, and his FC record is deemed so unimportant he didn't turn up to play any matches because its not worthwhile. Only 2 tests ago, England validated not picking a spinner on the grounds Bethell was perfect to fill in a few overs in games spin doesn't factor. He did, in fact, play the role that Jacks has been given now. Why would that be the case?

Well, if they considered Jacks to be better in that role, then why did Bethell play at the Oval? If they consider Jacks a better batsman than Bethell, then why for the last year has Bethell been the person they backed, and at what point did that change?? What forced that change?? If they consider Jacks to be the better bowler and that is more important for the role required, then again, why did Jacks not play at the Oval?? What again forced this change?? They have said Bethell has more pure ability than anyone, so it cant be that. And form is a weird argument considering Bethell has the same amount of wickets in the games he played that Jacks has in the warm up, but at half the average... and double runs with the bat. And Jacks has only played 3 FC in the calendar year, so he quite literally has no form whatsoever.

The net effect is, England picked a person with no FC pedigree on the basis they decided his performance in lesser cricket was meaningless. They elevated him to a test cap, said he could play a particular role, dropped him after one game in the summer to be back up again, but still deemed so important as a prospect he is the only top order bat taken as cover.... then he outperforms Jacks considerably over two games, and suddenly form acutely matters for Bethell who is dropped, but not mattering enough that his replacement is someone who has basically retired from FC cricket and played badly in both warm up games....

It would appear that there is no consistent logic at all .... ...

[sussexpob]

Let's all remember as well that Oval test. I can remember saying before that test that not playing a spinner with a big strutting pace attack was dumb, and I predicted someone would get injured when Bethell wouldn't be a valid option to hand the ball too.... and low and behold, guess what happened. In the second innings with the series on the line, it was Josh Tongue bowling an a 12 over spell for 0-90 as Bethell twiddled his thumbs. Tongue ended up bowling 30 odd overs in about 90 by memory... blowing out his A8se as India turned the match around. I also said before that test picking a player de facto retired from FC cricket out the blue was not a good idea. Overton bowled like a drain, and had the decency to retire himself to save England further blushes.

Two tests later, we are back to a tactic that was a disaster when we used it last time, and all to accommodate another part-time Surrey player who has de facto retired from FC cricket, who averages less than a wicket per FC at a monstrously high average, and isn't in the top 25 batters you could pick over him.

Pick a full time spinner to do the job... fine

Pick a full time bat to bolster the line up and say spin wont matter, and have Root bowl 10-15 overs... fine.

Picking Jacks... I just don't see why

[Durhamfootman]

clearly you can't see the bigger picture

Let's hope for England's sake that it turns out to be an inspired decision. They needed to strengthen the batting, whether Jacks is the man for that we'll have to wait and see. What happens to pink ball spin under lights? Does dew have to be factored in?

[andy]

As mccullum said when he took over...his reign would likely be defined by the result of this series, let them make whatever ridiculous decision they want but ultimately 'bazball' could well be over at the end of this series if the wheels continue to come off

[sussexpob]

Let's hope for England's sake that it turns out to be an inspired decision. They needed to strengthen the batting, whether Jacks is the man for that we'll have to wait and see

Its a simple mathematical reality of the game that measurable batting quality becomes more disproportionate to actual resultant output the further down the order you go, so the idea that changing your number 8 on mostly the batting depth he gives is not efficient, even when considering whatever their performance is. Take an example: Ben Stokes averages 35 at 7, and 34 at 6 over a huge sample size. The slightly higher quality of his batting at 7 factors into a reduction of 17.3 runs per match in actual real terms contribution, because its a lower position, its less important or less likely to factor into a game. This reduction then becomes more and more disproportionate as you go down the order, so at 8 you could probably expect that to be 25 runs les - at which point he's really averaging under 20 runs an innings and is pretty much a non factor.

Daniel Vettori had the best record of a number 8 ever. In terms of comparison to everyone else who played the role to any sustained time, he is literally like a Bradman to the rest style outlier in every metric- 50s, 100s, runs scored, average, etc, just miles ahead on his own planet. But his output was 46 runs per match... Zak Crawley, who averages 10 runs less than Vettori as an opener scores 10 runs more per game. The next best historically (Dhoni, who played 14 games at 8) is 12 less per game despite averaging 70. Boucher is a full 24 runs behind Crawley. Gilchrist 17. Craig White is right up there in the 8 slot all time for run averages, again 15 less runs per game. The simple truth is, even if Jacks were to perform long term to historically high levels consistently, he'd still not score as many runs as one of England's worst ever batsman who played 50 tests.

By the time you consider merely above average/good stuff, you are talking about the difference to a team of 2-3 runs.

Number 8's don't save crap top 6-7s

[sussexpob]

Of course, its possible you get isolated match changing innings now and then, but you have to offset that with the fact on average the bowling pies becomes a tax on the extra batting to the point the overall is a negative.

I haven't even got into the fact that finger spinners without hardly any historical exceptions get eaten alive in Australia, the fact the last time we tried this the all rounder/spinner in question didn't score a 50 and took 5/550 across the series with a strike rate of 1 wicket per 35 overs, nor the fact that Jacks simply doesn't play much cricket, has no form, hasnt bowled much or all that well in either game in the warmups, and his career record is just not good enough to be considered anywhere near a top spinner.....But yeah I admit, I dont have the intellect of Rob Key.

[andy]

Still no news from Australia who's replacing khawaja however common sense would say surely head opens and inglis slots in at 5...crikey it's a strong batting line up if they fire

[GarlicJam]

Inglis, or Beau Webster - Webster has þhe advantage of bowling decent seam-up or off-spin, as well as having a couple of buckets at the end of two long arms. He does well in the slips and gully region.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Vaughan is touting Lyon being left out and Webster batting at 8...

[sussexpob]

Inglis, or Beau Webster - Webster has þhe advantage of bowling decent seam-up or off-spin, as well as having a couple of buckets at the end of two long arms. He does well in the slips and gully region.

No idea why he was dropped in the first place. Everyone copped a hard time on those trampolines that Windies served up in the summer, and he did well before that. I'd rather pick him than Camo Green at this point in both disciplines.

[GarlicJam]

Vaughan is touting Lyon being left out and Webster batting at 8...

as are many pundits

by pundits, I mean people putting their 2 cents worth in on the internet.

I don't mind the idea myself. Between Webster and Head, they can bowl a few and maybe snare the odd wicket. Boosting the batting is a positive atm.

[GarlicJam]

This has taken way too long to come about.

After a huge build up to the series, probably the biggest I have seen, it started with a huge bang and stopped for close on two weeks.

Two weeks of over the top celebrations from the media on our side, and two weeks of over the top recriminations from the media on your side. While I have enjoyed them both, both have been wearing on me for some time now.


While we know the replacement for Khawaja, Inglis, the strong speculation is that Nathan Lyon will not play and possibly Pat Cummins sneaking into the eleven. My guess in Michael Neser will get another opportunity at his home ground.

[bigfluffylemon]

Mitchwash 2.0 on the cards. England seem determined to lose to Starc alone.