Ashes 2025-26.

[sussexpob]

McC said he didn't want the batters confidence being undermined ahead of the second test.

Not exactly a glowing assessment... I dont want to expose them to failure, so we wont play them.

[andy]

Surely their confidence can't get any lower? They may say that they're fine but there's no way they can have any actual batting confidence surely...

[Durhamfootman]

trust the process, probably

[Arthur Crabtree]

Walk towards the danger!

[Durhamfootman]

do bend over to pick up the soap in the prison shower

that one might have been a chapter in Sarkozy's book

[Durhamfootman]

as long as they remember never to walk into the light, no matter what Baz tells them

[alfie]

Seems odd not to take the opportunity of playing a night game with a pink ball when they have time. However I did see comments some time ago from an Australian State coach/player (name escapes me for now) that the conditions in Canberra would be so far removed from those in Brisbane that the practice benefits would be extremely minimal.

As we saw in Perth , it is the treatment of bounce/length that brings visiting players undone ... and certainly did England's top order. If they can bring themselves to have a decent look at the bowling before flashing outside off they might have a chance to make runs - pink ball or otherwise. And Pope in particular needs to accept if you've been beaten half a dozen times outside off it probably isn't a great idea to keep swinging away - especially when you have just lost your partner.

I have no problem with them continuing to proceed with a very aggressive game plan : it (notably the hammering of Boland ) arguably enabled them to score 170 rather than 120 against a brilliant Starc attack in bowler-friendly conditions on day one. Australia's more timid approach later the same day did not fare so well. But the failure to read the situation after lunch second time around , when just a few overs of more conservative consolidation would have had Australia working through their change bowler options , undid all that. Overconfidence ? Suspect it was ; because the way in which they then lost hope so quickly when Head blasted off spoke of a team that had had a huge shock and just wasn't in the same headspace as they'd been on the first day.

[sussexpob]

I have no problem with them continuing to proceed with a very aggressive game plan

I think there is an acute difference between making informed decisions taking high reward/risk as a default position, and the "run to the fire" type of idiocy that England advocate. I take poker as an example - there are endless scenarios where a very aggressive player can use skill and misdirection to win hands where he deduces he is mathematically more likely beaten, and bluffs are a key factor in success in the game.... but anyone who just sets out to bet blind or be wantonly aggressive without a plan or without reacting to how others bet will only ever win in isolated cases where they get incredible luck, and such a method is not a method for any level of even very short term success in 99.99% of scenarios.

Jamie Smith summed up England's approach after his score vs India last summer. He pretty much literally said that he decided to come down the pitch and whack it at a whim, decisions he made while the bowler was walking back to his mark. Stuart Broad loves to tell the story of Joe Root declaring at dinner the day before a test that, no matter what, he would slog the first ball he got.....This is the equivalent of a poker player not looking at their cards and going all in. There isn't a plan, its not aggression... its just idiocy.

Someone like Dave Warner on the other hand had an excellent record in Australia, and was a very aggressive player. I didn't see him dilscooping a 93mph ball over the keepers head ever - that "aggression" manifest itself in him saying "if the ball is fractionally fuller than what is normal to pull, I trust my technique and ability in playing the shot to get down on the ball and hit it. If the ball is slightly tighter than is normal to cut, I trust my ability to free my arms enough to get over the ball. If the ball is slightly uppish or a little wide, I trust my ability to hit the ball at the top of the bounce and drive it through the covers"......

You end up with a key difference. The former has no form of risk or reward analysis, the other is a concerted plan to play the percentages to your favour by taking an aggressive approach. Everytime Warner went at a slightly uppish ball that most batsman would not drive at, he was saying my better ability to play these shots outweighs the risks involved. I might get out 10% of times I play it, but I will add 20-30 runs now one else gets from doing it, which is then added to the conventional runs made from bad balls....someone else with slightly less ability might get out 20% of times they play it, which then makes 10-15 runs only, which in turn would not be efficient overall. How can any of that process or appreciation of risk be factored into what England do if they just decide to baseball bat whatever comes their way before they know what ball it is? The risk of playing a ramp shot changes from minimal to almost 100 percent depending on where the ball pitches....

As a risk analysis, you are essentially saying at that point I am willing to accept a possible near 100% risk for a boundary.... which, to stick with the poker pun, is like going all in with a 6 high when the pot has nothing in it.

[sussexpob]

When Bazball first arrived, I understood the idea in terms of a strive for efficiency; a rational idea to a problem England faced with players not having the technique to survive long enough to make big scores by batting conventionally. Zak Crawley will edge one behind from a ball in the channel on average given 50 balls to face, so if we have only 50 balls and he spends that time blocking, he goes nowhere.... on the other hand, I accept his average innings will reduce to from 50 to 35-40 being aggressive, but the risk factor when he drives is lower than most because he plays thee shot so well... I can expect more runs with him taking risks than him blocking. Its a perfectly acceptable idea for me.

The problem is, either the idea got warped or I gave McCullum too much credit, because the point then where you essentially embrace any level of risk turns the result into a totally difference calculation. You are no longer striving for efficiency because your average balls is lowering dramatically to the point you are going the other way - you would be better to block going nowhere, because the alternative is to burn out in a few balls. I palpably refuse to believe in pretty much any conditions and against any attack in history, save for playing on something like 1997 Sabina Park type pitches, that a test match side cannot bat more than 60 overs in a test.

The result is a bat average in the last test of 15.... you will lose 99% of games batting like that. England need to be smarter, need to adapt to pick their battles more.

[andy]

You can be smart while being aggressive and that's where this side gets confused and lacks the thought process to execute that idea properly and on a regular basis

[Durhamfootman]

and yet these guys are not daft, they must know all this stuff, so there must be other factors at play

[alfie]

and yet these guys are not daft, they must know all this stuff, so there must be other factors at play

Yes that is the part that puzzled me in the second innings. The (obviously planned) assault on Boland had worked extremely well on day one (although all rather undermined by Starc's brilliance !) so reasonable to expect more of the same : but I would have thought Pope for one should surely have observed that Boland had adjusted his length significantly - and therefore adopted a modified method of dealing with him. Even to the point of just seeing off three or four overs , forcing a bowler change...but oddly he just kept taking the same risk he'd got away with several times until finally he was gone... Wasn't smart. And for a player with his experience , disappointing. He actually seems quite thoughtful , when he has filled in as captain ; so I am surprised he wouldn't bring the same consideration to his batting.

Then Brook : looked like overconfidence after that first innings 50 : but again , surely have a wee look at the bowling first , no ? Brook has form for this over-exuberant start - perhaps born of his early career success. Or too much white ball stuff ? Habits are hard to break. But he is likely to be brought back to earth unless he reins these instincts in a bit. Would be a waste of a huge talent.

And finally Root who played an uncharacteristically loose shot which I can only imagine was sparked by anxiety after his first innings duck (when he was basically undone by a peach of a delivery from Starc) . We know he is better than that.

So all a bit different : the one common factor being an absence of footwork along with insufficient respect for the hazards of driving on the up on this sort of surface.

I do not seriously believe they are instructed to go out and swing from the first ball regardless ( I take the often rather silly remarks they sometimes make to the media with a pinch of salt - though I do wish they wouldn't keep feeding the tabloids with ammunition to use whenever they have a bad day) ; so would hope they will have taken lessons from this one which will give them a better chance of coping with expected "more of the same" conditions in Brisbane.

Guess we will see in couple of weeks.

[andy]

It's okay because they've decided to have two extra training sessions so all will be okay now.....

[sussexpob]

I do not seriously believe they are instructed to go out and swing from the first ball regardless

They might not expressly be told to whack every ball, but I don't think it matters at all in the context of the discussion. What is quite clear is, each batter has been given a licence to do what they want, and any terrible decisions or embarrassing dismissals will not result in any accountability or criticism - it is all passed off as a necessary blip in the grand strategy of taking the game to the opposition. One batter fails to a bad shot, its ok because the team approach win over the whole game. All batters fail miserably, its ok because we will win other games. Lose a series, its ok there are more series in the future to win.... What is clear is, the approach itself is never wrong. The team remind us all the time its necessary to trust the process; which breeds an environment of zero accountability.

The net effect is you dumb down the game for the players. They see everything in black and white. Shot selection is never criticised, the match situation never matters; you start to critically analyse bad decisions on their execution. You wanted to dilscoop a 94 mph yorker and got bowled? Well next time try to middle it for 6, and thats what we focus on, because the idea is all part of trusting the process. The idea is never wrong.

I mean, you mention Boland's spell at 73-1. The point at which Boland starts putting the ball on 7th stump line wide outside off, you have won the battle. Day 2 of the series, a huge lead in the context of conditions, 9 wickets left, and a guy who averages 12 in Australia is so concerned where he is going to get smashed next he is just trying to get through his next spell without conceding 52 runs....

What happens next is a result of the team ethos. Utter domination in the form of smashing 6s is the only part of the game England seem to see positives. They have been dummed down to the point of seeing nothing else. At that point, had England watched the endless stream of wide balls fly to the keeper then the match situation dictates its Australia who have to blink first, they have to make things happen. Just keep them more in that position of chasing the game, and boundaries will eventually come. Boland will have to change plan again and get further from his natural line/length that works.

I guess outsmarting your opponent and winning such battles isnt quite Caveman macho enough to satisfy England. Winning games with street smarts of winning isolated battles with anything other than brute force, they just don't see it. You don't trust that because it's not the process....

And the process is always right. The process is always right... the process is always right.... the process is ALWAYS right.

Say it with me

[alfie]

Trouble with all that is that it takes responsibility away from the players and blames all failings on coaching...and none of us are in that dressing room so we do not know what is actually said away from public view.

As I have pointed out before , there have been times where these fellows have actually played far more sensibly , and to good effect. I don't deny that there have also been far too many instances of them getting carried away with the old "fix bayonets , charge" approach. Some are guilty more often than others. As a general rule both Root (whose second innings shot was a bit of an aberration )and Stokes are well capable of taking the more conservative route : when both fail the innings is usually going to be in peril.

Just blaming it all on "Bazball" - a media invented term - is a bit simplistic. Taking pressure off players so they can bat without fear isn't bad in itself. But obviously they have to use that freedom to get results or ultimately both individuals and the team will be found wanting. In this case , they were. Have been plenty of other occasions where they have achieved impressive - and often unexpected - results ; but it seems to be the nature of English fans in any sport to pile on whenever things go wrong rather more enthusiastically than celebrating the successes.

Now obviously The Ashes - and to a lesser extent , tours of India - are series by which teams are going to be judged ; and on those counts this outfit has so far fallen short. But given the previous three tours of Australia have produced a record of 0-13 , perhaps we should watch another game or two before we call for captain and coach to be sent to The Tower ?

For the record , I have never been too confident of success in this series because I doubt the batting is quite up to it. But I hope I am wrong ; because I believe the basic philosophy behind the current approach is more likely to achieve overseas success than a retreat to a more timid method out of fear of criticism. (And I know that isn't what you are advocating , Sussex : you just want them to exercise their brains more at the crease) Well so do I . I just reckon we can have our cake and eat it if players are prepared to learn from their mistakes ; and am prepared to give them a little longer to see if they do.