England Team Discussion

[Supreme General]

Oh please not James Vince, picking James Vince for England in 2023 should be a crime especially in tests. How many come backs can one player have until you just realise he’s crap. It’s like him and C Overton, they seem a bit too good for county cricket but nowhere near international quality

 

[wasteyouryouth]

 

[Aislabie]

I've personally not been that impressed by Muyeye when I've watched him on TV, but he obviously has something about him to have overcome all the obstacles he already has. And if England has to have a pinch-hitter in their Test team then I can think of one worse option who's already in the team.

And speaking of the Test team, I am frustrated. I like the Bazball approach that they've been using for the last year or so, but I think that it has to go hand in hand with how cricket actually works as opposed to actively going against it. Particularly in Pakistan, they really showed the importance that role clarity has in getting the best out of a team of limited players - even if the roles players are given aren't necessarily traditional Test cricket roles. However, they still selected the best players for the roles that they were intending to use, and it worked.

Currently, they're simply not doing that and I don't know whether it's because their heads are scrambled by it being The Ashes or whether they've just disappeared up their own arses in their devotion to the Cult of Baz.

For example, the wicket-keeper is a crucial role, particularly in Test cricket where the impact of a missed chance could be match-defining. Most of the time, the go-to player in this role was Ben Foakes, who doubled up in the role of a lower-order firefighter who could see off a collapse or see a chase over the line in a high-pressure situation. The signs were there that they perhaps didn't value either of these roles in the team highly enough when Foakes was left out in Multan, but there remained the possible extenuating circumstance that Foakes may not have been fully fit. But this summer it has happened again.

This time, Bairstow has been left out for Jonny Bairstow. Bairstow is one of the most destructive batters in the world, and under Stokes' leadership that translated into Test cricket for the first time. He had the role of a middle-order enforcer, and in that role he thrived. Then, as we all know, he managed to have a freak golf accident and spent the better part of a year having his leg fixed. In that time, his replacement (Harry Brook) made that same middle-order enforcer's role his own. It was magnificent, and we all saw it.

Now, Jonny Bairstow is fit again. And the regime decided that he had to come back into the side. So they dropped Ben Foakes to make room for his return. That meant they replaced a world-class wicket-keeper and firefighter with a part-time keeper (40 of his 92 Tests have been as a batter only) and another middle-order enforcer. And worse still, Bairstow is clearly not fully fit to keep wicket. He is less mobile than ever before behind the stumps, and I don't blame him for this in the slightest: he's got a semi-bionic leg now, and legs have a habit of never quite recovering to the condition they were in before they were injured. That Bairstow has struggled is not his fault; he is in a position that he should never have been put in to begin with.

And then Jack Leach got injured. On the surface level, this meant that England were missing their spinner, but that really belied what Leach's role was in the team. Bazball's fast-forward approach to batting means that there is far less recovery time for England's bowlers between innings; as a result, they have to find a way to rest their seamers while fielding. Thus, Leach's all-important role as a specialist workhorse. Without him to bowl from one end for an entire session, the workload for the seam bowlers - among them a 40-year-old Anderson, a 37-year-old Broad, and The Rig himself, Ollie Robinson - becomes untenable.

So when he became injured, they had to replace him with a workhorse bowler - ideally a spinner, as a seamer would not be likely to complete such a workload uninjured. So they picked Moeen Ali, who had not bowled more than 10 overs in a cricket match since 2021. This was deeply stupid, no matter how much you like Mo. By the end of the Test, he was too injured to bowl. So they replaced him with Josh Tongue. Tongue was almost certainly the pick of the bowlers at Lord's, but he is not a workhorse. There was nobody to break up the workload for the seamers, so on Day Four, Ben Stokes took it upon himself to bowl a 12-over spell of bouncers just to give his bowlers some rest. He did this, as we all know, on a landing knee that is held together entirely by thoughts and prayers.

Worst of all, the correct selection for both Test matches was clear to everybody: Liam Dawson is a reliable left-arm spinner who bowls long spells, and who is currently in career-best form for Hampshire. More than that, he would even have helped cover the firefighter batting role left vacant by the axing of Ben Foakes. His first-class batting record (8,783 runs @ 33.01, 12 centuries) stands up reasonably well against Foakes (7,760 runs @ 39.59, 15 centuries) - not a perfect like-for-like swap, but an adequate poor man's version if you can't have the real thing.

I had been under the impression that Bazball was a novel approach to Test cricket that was still built on the fundamentals of role clarity and an understanding of how to build a Test cricket team. I am beginning to think that I was mistaken about that last part, especially as they have embraced the philosophy of DON'T BACK DOON, DOUBLE DOON with their Third Test squad.

Were I in the shoes of Key, or McCullum, or Stokes, then Ben Foakes really would be the first name on my teamsheet. His presence as a very able firefighter down the order meant that collapses of 30 for three when the middle order got out quickly did not turn into collapses of 60 for seven. That presence is missing now, and the collapses are happening again. Moreover, his presence allows the middle-order enforcers to carry out their work with more freedom. Stokes and McCullum have been clear many times about wanting to remove the fear of failure from their players, and yet they have removed the player who removed the fear of failure. It's baffling.

It's too late to fix what went before in the first two Tests, and by now it's also too late to fix things for the next Test. So barring one or more exceptional individual performances to overcome the team's shortcomings, The Ashes are gone.

For what it's worth, these are the roles that I see fitting together in a correctly functioning Bazball team.

Batting roles:

1. Tone-setting opening batter - The England management have been clear about this role: controversially, the job isn't to score consistent runs. Instead, it is to go out and hit good balls for four. If (for example) Pat Cummins has a length ball hit for four first up, that will effect his thinking. I'm not sure Crawley is the best player for this, but let it never be said that he doesn't understand his role.
2. Dynamic opening batter - This is one way in which the team really evolved from the 2022 summer: Ben Duckett came in and really defined the role of a dynamic opener. It reframes the start of the innings not as the time when you're most likely to get out, but the time when there are most gaps in the field to be busy and score runs.
3. Dynamic number three - Playing almost as a third opener, the dynamic number three's role is to continue the work of the openers. Ollie Pope has done really well here, and England will have everything crossed that he is fit for the coming game.
4. Leading batter - Joe Root has this role on lock, and England probably think of Brook as Root's successor - even though he isn't (it should be Ollie Pope). This player's sole responsibility is to bat in the way that allows them to score the most runs.
5. Middle-order enforcer - Both Bairstow and Brook have thrived in this role, but the only way they can play together is if the batting roles extend all the way down to number eight.
6. Situation player - The most flexible player in the team: the situation player needs to be able to play anything from a defensive rearguard to an all-out blitz with the tail. Ben Stokes has taken on this role himself, but Harry Brook could be a natural successor.
7. Firefighter - Ben Foakes played this role superbly in 2022, and has been sorely missed. As established, Liam Dawson could also fulfil this role from number eight. Moeen Ali cannot.

Bowling and fielding roles

1. Wicket-keeper - Obviously Ben Foakes is the best pick here. The keeping of an immobile Bairstow has arguably cost England both Test matches so far, even if it is only one of countless moments that could have influenced the results of two relatively close Tests.
2. New ball swing bowler - Jimmy Anderson or Chris Woakes; getting the Dukes to swing is still a valuable skill. I'm not sure who the natural successor is to either of these two. England are also at risk of losing sight of this weapon entirely as they get very excited about bowling bouncers.
3. New ball seam bowler - Stuart Broad or Ollie Robinson; this is all about accuracy and seam movement, especially the wobble-seam ball that has been so effective.
4. Point of difference bowler - Mark Wood or Josh Tongue at the moment, or even a left-armer if they can find one. In lieu of a point-of difference bowler being fit and available, England have sometimes selected a second seam bowler instead.
5. Workhorse spin bowler - The one who allows all those seamers to operate at their best. His job is to bowl infinite overs and not to leak runs while doing it. Wickets are a valuable bonus.
6. Short spells bowler - Whether it's a Ben Stokes or a Joe Root, or even a Rehan Ahmed, this is a bowler who is not expected to bowl long spells but who is expected to come on and look for wickets.

I think that's a pretty inoffensive interpretation of how the England Test side fits together. And it really does lay bare exactly why the Ashes are currently 2-0 to Australia. Bazball isn't a failed philosophy at all, but England need to get a handle on things so give Bazball the best chance of continuing to succeed. Currently they're high on their own supply, and it's hurting the team.

One other fun exercise is to see how well Bazball principles can be applied to other teams and player pools. But for now I'll leave it because this post is already very long indeed.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I've personally not been that impressed by Muyeye when I've watched him on TV, but he obviously has something about him to have overcome all the obstacles he already has. And if England has to have a pinch-hitter in their Test team then I can think of one worse option who's already in the team.

And speaking of the Test team, I am frustrated. I like the Bazball approach that they've been using for the last year or so, but I think that it has to go hand in hand with how cricket actually works as opposed to actively going against it. Particularly in Pakistan, they really showed the importance that role clarity has in getting the best out of a team of limited players - even if the roles players are given aren't necessarily traditional Test cricket roles. However, they still selected the best players for the roles that they were intending to use, and it worked.

Currently, they're simply not doing that and I don't know whether it's because their heads are scrambled by it being The Ashes or whether they've just disappeared up their own arses in their devotion to the Cult of Baz.

For example, the wicket-keeper is a crucial role, particularly in Test cricket where the impact of a missed chance could be match-defining. Most of the time, the go-to player in this role was Ben Foakes, who doubled up in the role of a lower-order firefighter who could see off a collapse or see a chase over the line in a high-pressure situation. The signs were there that they perhaps didn't value either of these roles in the team highly enough when Foakes was left out in Multan, but there remained the possible extenuating circumstance that Foakes may not have been fully fit. But this summer it has happened again.

This time, Bairstow has been left out for Jonny Bairstow. Bairstow is one of the most destructive batters in the world, and under Stokes' leadership that translated into Test cricket for the first time. He had the role of a middle-order enforcer, and in that role he thrived. Then, as we all know, he managed to have a freak golf accident and spent the better part of a year having his leg fixed. In that time, his replacement (Harry Brook) made that same middle-order enforcer's role his own. It was magnificent, and we all saw it.

Now, Jonny Bairstow is fit again. And the regime decided that he had to come back into the side. So they dropped Ben Foakes to make room for his return. That meant they replaced a world-class wicket-keeper and firefighter with a part-time keeper (40 of his 92 Tests have been as a batter only) and another middle-order enforcer. And worse still, Bairstow is clearly not fully fit to keep wicket. He is less mobile than ever before behind the stumps, and I don't blame him for this in the slightest: he's got a semi-bionic leg now, and legs have a habit of never quite recovering to the condition they were in before they were injured. That Bairstow has struggled is not his fault; he is in a position that he should never have been put in to begin with.

And then Jack Leach got injured. On the surface level, this meant that England were missing their spinner, but that really belied what Leach's role was in the team. Bazball's fast-forward approach to batting means that there is far less recovery time for England's bowlers between innings; as a result, they have to find a way to rest their seamers while fielding. Thus, Leach's all-important role as a specialist workhorse. Without him to bowl from one end for an entire session, the workload for the seam bowlers - among them a 40-year-old Anderson, a 37-year-old Broad, and The Rig himself, Ollie Robinson - becomes untenable.

So when he became injured, they had to replace him with a workhorse bowler - ideally a spinner, as a seamer would not be likely to complete such a workload uninjured. So they picked Moeen Ali, who had not bowled more than 10 overs in a cricket match since 2021. This was deeply stupid, no matter how much you like Mo. By the end of the Test, he was too injured to bowl. So they replaced him with Josh Tongue. Tongue was almost certainly the pick of the bowlers at Lord's, but he is not a workhorse. There was nobody to break up the workload for the seamers, so on Day Four, Ben Stokes took it upon himself to bowl a 12-over spell of bouncers just to give his bowlers some rest. He did this, as we all know, on a landing knee that is held together entirely by thoughts and prayers.

Worst of all, the correct selection for both Test matches was clear to everybody: Liam Dawson is a reliable left-arm spinner who bowls long spells, and who is currently in career-best form for Hampshire. More than that, he would even have helped cover the firefighter batting role left vacant by the axing of Ben Foakes. His first-class batting record (8,783 runs @ 33.01, 12 centuries) stands up reasonably well against Foakes (7,760 runs @ 39.59, 15 centuries) - not a perfect like-for-like swap, but an adequate poor man's version if you can't have the real thing.

I had been under the impression that Bazball was a novel approach to Test cricket that was still built on the fundamentals of role clarity and an understanding of how to build a Test cricket team. I am beginning to think that I was mistaken about that last part, especially as they have embraced the philosophy of DON'T BACK DOON, DOUBLE DOON with their Third Test squad.

Were I in the shoes of Key, or McCullum, or Stokes, then Ben Foakes really would be the first name on my teamsheet. His presence as a very able firefighter down the order meant that collapses of 30 for three when the middle order got out quickly did not turn into collapses of 60 for seven. That presence is missing now, and the collapses are happening again. Moreover, his presence allows the middle-order enforcers to carry out their work with more freedom. Stokes and McCullum have been clear many times about wanting to remove the fear of failure from their players, and yet they have removed the player who removed the fear of failure. It's baffling.

It's too late to fix what went before in the first two Tests, and by now it's also too late to fix things for the next Test. So barring one or more exceptional individual performances to overcome the team's shortcomings, The Ashes are gone.

For what it's worth, these are the roles that I see fitting together in a correctly functioning Bazball team.

Batting roles:

1. Tone-setting opening batter - The England management have been clear about this role: controversially, the job isn't to score consistent runs. Instead, it is to go out and hit good balls for four. If (for example) Pat Cummins has a length ball hit for four first up, that will effect his thinking. I'm not sure Crawley is the best player for this, but let it never be said that he doesn't understand his role.
2. Dynamic opening batter - This is one way in which the team really evolved from the 2022 summer: Ben Duckett came in and really defined the role of a dynamic opener. It reframes the start of the innings not as the time when you're most likely to get out, but the time when there are most gaps in the field to be busy and score runs.
3. Dynamic number three - Playing almost as a third opener, the dynamic number three's role is to continue the work of the openers. Ollie Pope has done really well here, and England will have everything crossed that he is fit for the coming game.
4. Leading batter - Joe Root has this role on lock, and England probably think of Brook as Root's successor - even though he isn't (it should be Ollie Pope). This player's sole responsibility is to bat in the way that allows them to score the most runs.
5. Middle-order enforcer - Both Bairstow and Brook have thrived in this role, but the only way they can play together is if the batting roles extend all the way down to number eight.
6. Situation player - The most flexible player in the team: the situation player needs to be able to play anything from a defensive rearguard to an all-out blitz with the tail. Ben Stokes has taken on this role himself, but Harry Brook could be a natural successor.
7. Firefighter - Ben Foakes played this role superbly in 2022, and has been sorely missed. As established, Liam Dawson could also fulfil this role from number eight. Moeen Ali cannot.

Bowling and fielding roles

1. Wicket-keeper - Obviously Ben Foakes is the best pick here. The keeping of an immobile Bairstow has arguably cost England both Test matches so far, even if it is only one of countless moments that could have influenced the results of two relatively close Tests.
2. New ball swing bowler - Jimmy Anderson or Chris Woakes; getting the Dukes to swing is still a valuable skill. I'm not sure who the natural successor is to either of these two. England are also at risk of losing sight of this weapon entirely as they get very excited about bowling bouncers.
3. New ball seam bowler - Stuart Broad or Ollie Robinson; this is all about accuracy and seam movement, especially the wobble-seam ball that has been so effective.
4. Point of difference bowler - Mark Wood or Josh Tongue at the moment, or even a left-armer if they can find one. In lieu of a point-of difference bowler being fit and available, England have sometimes selected a second seam bowler instead.
5. Workhorse spin bowler - The one who allows all those seamers to operate at their best. His job is to bowl infinite overs and not to leak runs while doing it. Wickets are a valuable bonus.
6. Short spells bowler - Whether it's a Ben Stokes or a Joe Root, or even a Rehan Ahmed, this is a bowler who is not expected to bowl long spells but who is expected to come on and look for wickets.

I think that's a pretty inoffensive interpretation of how the England Test side fits together. And it really does lay bare exactly why the Ashes are currently 2-0 to Australia. Bazball isn't a failed philosophy at all, but England need to get a handle on things so give Bazball the best chance of continuing to succeed. Currently they're high on their own supply, and it's hurting the team.

One other fun exercise is to see how well Bazball principles can be applied to other teams and player pools. But for now I'll leave it because this post is already very long indeed.

I think the team selection has cost them, as well as not performing at key times. Picking a spinner who hasn't bowled a lot for ages was always a risk and then picking four number 11s (although Robinson is a better batter than that) another risk. But, they were banging it in on a featherbed at Edgbaston and then banging it in, with more success at Lord's but certainly didn't bowl well when conditions were in their favour.

I don't know the situation with Wood - are they saving him or is he not fully fit? But if he was in the side I think England would have definitely won the Edgbaston test and given how successful the short ball was at Lord's it might have been even more likely to bring a victory. Failing that, I think Woakes at Lord's - given his record there and that he plays more ODI cricket and is so more used to banging it in - would have been a better selection than Anderson. A lot of that is hindsight based on how pitches have developed, that are probably less predictable than we are used to, and the fact that Anderson has been largely a passenger.

It's difficult to predict what they'll do next, I could easily see them picking the same team. Guess not, now Pope is ruled out.

 

[blockerdave]

I've personally not been that impressed by Muyeye when I've watched him on TV, but he obviously has something about him to have overcome all the obstacles he already has. And if England has to have a pinch-hitter in their Test team then I can think of one worse option who's already in the team.

And speaking of the Test team, I am frustrated. I like the Bazball approach that they've been using for the last year or so, but I think that it has to go hand in hand with how cricket actually works as opposed to actively going against it. Particularly in Pakistan, they really showed the importance that role clarity has in getting the best out of a team of limited players - even if the roles players are given aren't necessarily traditional Test cricket roles. However, they still selected the best players for the roles that they were intending to use, and it worked.

Currently, they're simply not doing that and I don't know whether it's because their heads are scrambled by it being The Ashes or whether they've just disappeared up their own arses in their devotion to the Cult of Baz.

For example, the wicket-keeper is a crucial role, particularly in Test cricket where the impact of a missed chance could be match-defining. Most of the time, the go-to player in this role was Ben Foakes, who doubled up in the role of a lower-order firefighter who could see off a collapse or see a chase over the line in a high-pressure situation. The signs were there that they perhaps didn't value either of these roles in the team highly enough when Foakes was left out in Multan, but there remained the possible extenuating circumstance that Foakes may not have been fully fit. But this summer it has happened again.

This time, Bairstow has been left out for Jonny Bairstow. Bairstow is one of the most destructive batters in the world, and under Stokes' leadership that translated into Test cricket for the first time. He had the role of a middle-order enforcer, and in that role he thrived. Then, as we all know, he managed to have a freak golf accident and spent the better part of a year having his leg fixed. In that time, his replacement (Harry Brook) made that same middle-order enforcer's role his own. It was magnificent, and we all saw it.

Now, Jonny Bairstow is fit again. And the regime decided that he had to come back into the side. So they dropped Ben Foakes to make room for his return. That meant they replaced a world-class wicket-keeper and firefighter with a part-time keeper (40 of his 92 Tests have been as a batter only) and another middle-order enforcer. And worse still, Bairstow is clearly not fully fit to keep wicket. He is less mobile than ever before behind the stumps, and I don't blame him for this in the slightest: he's got a semi-bionic leg now, and legs have a habit of never quite recovering to the condition they were in before they were injured. That Bairstow has struggled is not his fault; he is in a position that he should never have been put in to begin with.

And then Jack Leach got injured. On the surface level, this meant that England were missing their spinner, but that really belied what Leach's role was in the team. Bazball's fast-forward approach to batting means that there is far less recovery time for England's bowlers between innings; as a result, they have to find a way to rest their seamers while fielding. Thus, Leach's all-important role as a specialist workhorse. Without him to bowl from one end for an entire session, the workload for the seam bowlers - among them a 40-year-old Anderson, a 37-year-old Broad, and The Rig himself, Ollie Robinson - becomes untenable.

So when he became injured, they had to replace him with a workhorse bowler - ideally a spinner, as a seamer would not be likely to complete such a workload uninjured. So they picked Moeen Ali, who had not bowled more than 10 overs in a cricket match since 2021. This was deeply stupid, no matter how much you like Mo. By the end of the Test, he was too injured to bowl. So they replaced him with Josh Tongue. Tongue was almost certainly the pick of the bowlers at Lord's, but he is not a workhorse. There was nobody to break up the workload for the seamers, so on Day Four, Ben Stokes took it upon himself to bowl a 12-over spell of bouncers just to give his bowlers some rest. He did this, as we all know, on a landing knee that is held together entirely by thoughts and prayers.

Worst of all, the correct selection for both Test matches was clear to everybody: Liam Dawson is a reliable left-arm spinner who bowls long spells, and who is currently in career-best form for Hampshire. More than that, he would even have helped cover the firefighter batting role left vacant by the axing of Ben Foakes. His first-class batting record (8,783 runs @ 33.01, 12 centuries) stands up reasonably well against Foakes (7,760 runs @ 39.59, 15 centuries) - not a perfect like-for-like swap, but an adequate poor man's version if you can't have the real thing.

I had been under the impression that Bazball was a novel approach to Test cricket that was still built on the fundamentals of role clarity and an understanding of how to build a Test cricket team. I am beginning to think that I was mistaken about that last part, especially as they have embraced the philosophy of DON'T BACK DOON, DOUBLE DOON with their Third Test squad.

Were I in the shoes of Key, or McCullum, or Stokes, then Ben Foakes really would be the first name on my teamsheet. His presence as a very able firefighter down the order meant that collapses of 30 for three when the middle order got out quickly did not turn into collapses of 60 for seven. That presence is missing now, and the collapses are happening again. Moreover, his presence allows the middle-order enforcers to carry out their work with more freedom. Stokes and McCullum have been clear many times about wanting to remove the fear of failure from their players, and yet they have removed the player who removed the fear of failure. It's baffling.

It's too late to fix what went before in the first two Tests, and by now it's also too late to fix things for the next Test. So barring one or more exceptional individual performances to overcome the team's shortcomings, The Ashes are gone.

For what it's worth, these are the roles that I see fitting together in a correctly functioning Bazball team.

Batting roles:

1. Tone-setting opening batter - The England management have been clear about this role: controversially, the job isn't to score consistent runs. Instead, it is to go out and hit good balls for four. If (for example) Pat Cummins has a length ball hit for four first up, that will effect his thinking. I'm not sure Crawley is the best player for this, but let it never be said that he doesn't understand his role.
2. Dynamic opening batter - This is one way in which the team really evolved from the 2022 summer: Ben Duckett came in and really defined the role of a dynamic opener. It reframes the start of the innings not as the time when you're most likely to get out, but the time when there are most gaps in the field to be busy and score runs.
3. Dynamic number three - Playing almost as a third opener, the dynamic number three's role is to continue the work of the openers. Ollie Pope has done really well here, and England will have everything crossed that he is fit for the coming game.
4. Leading batter - Joe Root has this role on lock, and England probably think of Brook as Root's successor - even though he isn't (it should be Ollie Pope). This player's sole responsibility is to bat in the way that allows them to score the most runs.
5. Middle-order enforcer - Both Bairstow and Brook have thrived in this role, but the only way they can play together is if the batting roles extend all the way down to number eight.
6. Situation player - The most flexible player in the team: the situation player needs to be able to play anything from a defensive rearguard to an all-out blitz with the tail. Ben Stokes has taken on this role himself, but Harry Brook could be a natural successor.
7. Firefighter - Ben Foakes played this role superbly in 2022, and has been sorely missed. As established, Liam Dawson could also fulfil this role from number eight. Moeen Ali cannot.

Bowling and fielding roles

1. Wicket-keeper - Obviously Ben Foakes is the best pick here. The keeping of an immobile Bairstow has arguably cost England both Test matches so far, even if it is only one of countless moments that could have influenced the results of two relatively close Tests.
2. New ball swing bowler - Jimmy Anderson or Chris Woakes; getting the Dukes to swing is still a valuable skill. I'm not sure who the natural successor is to either of these two. England are also at risk of losing sight of this weapon entirely as they get very excited about bowling bouncers.
3. New ball seam bowler - Stuart Broad or Ollie Robinson; this is all about accuracy and seam movement, especially the wobble-seam ball that has been so effective.
4. Point of difference bowler - Mark Wood or Josh Tongue at the moment, or even a left-armer if they can find one. In lieu of a point-of difference bowler being fit and available, England have sometimes selected a second seam bowler instead.
5. Workhorse spin bowler - The one who allows all those seamers to operate at their best. His job is to bowl infinite overs and not to leak runs while doing it. Wickets are a valuable bonus.
6. Short spells bowler - Whether it's a Ben Stokes or a Joe Root, or even a Rehan Ahmed, this is a bowler who is not expected to bowl long spells but who is expected to come on and look for wickets.

I think that's a pretty inoffensive interpretation of how the England Test side fits together. And it really does lay bare exactly why the Ashes are currently 2-0 to Australia. Bazball isn't a failed philosophy at all, but England need to get a handle on things so give Bazball the best chance of continuing to succeed. Currently they're high on their own supply, and it's hurting the team.

One other fun exercise is to see how well Bazball principles can be applied to other teams and player pools. But for now I'll leave it because this post is already very long indeed.

The principle is always the same… the “best” 11 players doesn’t equal the best team.

When England were shoehorning Lampard and Gerrard into their midfield in the 2000s and getting beat by every good team they played, Italy almost never played Totti & Del Piero.

This is the cricket version of that. And as you say, shoving the wrong player into the wrong role isn’t gonna work.

Post automatically merged: Jul 4, 2023

I think the team selection has cost them, as well as not performing at key times. Picking a spinner who hasn't bowled a lot for ages was always a risk and then picking four number 11s (although Robinson is a better batter than that) another risk. But, they were banging it in on a featherbed at Edgbaston and then banging it in, with more success at Lord's but certainly didn't bowl well when conditions were in their favour.

I don't know the situation with Wood - are they saving him or is he not fully fit? But if he was in the side I think England would have definitely won the Edgbaston test and given how successful the short ball was at Lord's it might have been even more likely to bring a victory. Failing that, I think Woakes at Lord's - given his record there and that he plays more ODI cricket and is so more used to banging it in - would have been a better selection than Anderson. A lot of that is hindsight based on how pitches have developed, that are probably less predictable than we are used to, and the fact that Anderson has been largely a passenger.

It's difficult to predict what they'll do next, I could easily see them picking the same team. Guess not, now Pope is ruled out.

Picking an injured Pope would be a Bazball too far

 

[icyman]

Chris Sole & Mohd Amir from 2024 as well ?

 

[DuneTiger]

Genuine question here as an Australian, do you Poms actually believe in Bazball succeeding long term?

Feels like the type of system that could go on stretches of 10 test matches without a win, to counteract that amazing record you had with it before this ashes.
Also lots of questions being asked about Cummins captaincy but do you ever look at Stokes and wonder if he has failed as captain this series?
Failed to win ashes at home, despite winning every toss. Had beneficial conditions in basically every test. Unable to close out the 1st test, completely dominated in the 2nd (until his own innings tbf), and the 3rd could very easily have gone to Australia as well.

I don't know if there is much scrutiny on Stokes over there, but Cummins is being slammed in the media here despite us retaining the ashes.
Bazball in my opinion has only had 1 dominant day of cricket all series, (maybe 2).

EDIT: And from an Australian point of view... not picking Foakes is the biggest failure of this series. Bairstow is definitely in the best XI but he is just not close to a international quality keeper.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Genuine question here as an Australian, do you Poms actually believe in Bazball succeeding long term?

Feels like the type of system that could go on stretches of 10 test matches without a win, to counteract that amazing record you had with it before this ashes.
Also lots of questions being asked about Cummins captaincy but do you ever look at Stokes and wonder if he has failed as captain this series?
Failed to win ashes at home, despite winning every toss. Had beneficial conditions in basically every test. Unable to close out the 1st test, completely dominated in the 2nd (until his own innings tbf), and the 3rd could very easily have gone to Australia as well.

I don't know if there is much scrutiny on Stokes over there, but Cummins is being slammed in the media here despite us retaining the ashes.
Bazball in my opinion has only had 1 dominant day of cricket all series, (maybe 2).

EDIT: And from an Australian point of view... not picking Foakes is the biggest failure of this series. Bairstow is definitely in the best XI but he is just not close to a international quality keeper.

I look at it from the perspective of where we were after the last Ashes and then the West Indies tour. Rock bottom look like England from the 90s. Good players but a terrible side. I could easily have seen Australia winning 4-0 over here too. With, largely the same players, the team look like they can beat and dominate any team. I don't think Australia look like a better side overall but they've got through in some crucial phases of play. There's risk with England's style and they've perhaps made mis-steps this summer in some areas (selection, fielding are the biggest two in my opinion).

The big thing that isn't often overlooked because of the quick run scoring with the batting is the improvement in bowling. Stokes is always hunting for wickets. I've seen some people saying Moeen can't hold up an end but I don't think they expect him too. If he can bag crucial wickets, like he did at Headingley and Old Trafford, that's worth going at 4-5 an over. Equally he bowled very economically at Headingley.

There's been scrutiny of Stokes but after last summer, Pakistan and his past exploits he has a lot of credit in the bank; particularly with fans. I'd think if Cummins comes home with the Ashes it'd be hard for a lot of people to throw much mud at him; Ponting, Clarke never managed to win as captains in England.

I probably underestimated Australia, they've had some crucial contributions from all of the batters which has made up for lack of runs at times from Smith. If Smith had batted like previous tours Australia would probably be 3-0 up, but if it weren't for Khawaja, Head and Marsh I think England could be 2-1 up.

 

[Supreme General]

Genuine question here as an Australian, do you Poms actually believe in Bazball succeeding long term?

Feels like the type of system that could go on stretches of 10 test matches without a win, to counteract that amazing record you had with it before this ashes.
Also lots of questions being asked about Cummins captaincy but do you ever look at Stokes and wonder if he has failed as captain this series?
Failed to win ashes at home, despite winning every toss. Had beneficial conditions in basically every test. Unable to close out the 1st test, completely dominated in the 2nd (until his own innings tbf), and the 3rd could very easily have gone to Australia as well.

I don't know if there is much scrutiny on Stokes over there, but Cummins is being slammed in the media here despite us retaining the ashes.
Bazball in my opinion has only had 1 dominant day of cricket all series, (maybe 2).

EDIT: And from an Australian point of view... not picking Foakes is the biggest failure of this series. Bairstow is definitely in the best XI but he is just not close to a international quality keeper.

Absolutely this is the best method for this English team, from where we were to where we are now without that much turnover in personnel is extraordinary. It was 1 win in 17 tests to 13 wins in 7 breaking many records along the way. You look at this series and it’s been England playing all the cricket, we have dictated pretty much the direction of every test and could easily be 4-0 up or 3-0 down cause the tests have been so close. Yes it’s a failure in terms of not winning the ashes but i think it will be a great platform and lesson not to fully buy into our own egos like we did a bit towards the start of the series which we will boost ourselves on from here. Especially with our shift to white ball cricket since 2015, we have the players who can easily buy into what we are doing. In tight games you have to expect you will win some you will lose some but will not deter us because it’s high risk high reward, it’s the old saying ‘if you want me at my best, you have to accept me at my worst’. In the ‘Foakes debate’, we made the right choice imo cause I don’t ever see it as Foakes was dropped for Bairstow, Foakes was dropped for Brook. Bairstow was always going to return to the team due to his 2022 heroics, Baz said so back in Pakistan. So the best way of maximising this team would be with Bairstow with the gloves but going into the series he had actually a decent catching and stumping record as an England keeper. He’s had a tough time of it this series but I think the media has overestimated this debate and difference between Bairstow and Foakes cause it doesn’t actually exist. Also Foakes imo doesn’t have the temperament or personality to blend into this team. He comes across a lot more self-centred and unwilling to go on the attack and this ‘bazball’ style of play stems from a mindset more than our actual style of play.

 

[Aislabie]

Wisden writers pick their England XIs for the first 2025/26 Ashes Test

Four Wisden writers pick their predicted XIs for the first Test in the 2025/26 Ashes series at the Gabba.Subscribe to the Wisden Cricket YouTube channel for post-match analysis, player interviews, and much more.

wisden.com

Wisden are absolutely on one here. And it's made me revisit my own thoughts about a Bazball 2025 XI. I'm going to come up with a new one.

1. Zak Crawley - His place is pretty much set in stone forever now, and let's lean into that.
2. Ben Duckett - Has also earned himself a very long leash with his performances.
3. Ben Stokes - Probably won't be able to bowl anymore by 2025, but I thought he looked pretty good at number three.
4. Joe Root - The team has already shown a commitment to him not being moved from number four, and why should that change?
5. Harry Brook - Has almost certainly made this spot his own.
6. Ollie Robinson - I don't hugely think he'll be there, but a lot of respected judges seem to think he will. Plus, he's one half of a very funny possibility.
7. Jamie Overton - JOverton at seven is definitely insanity, but I could see England try it especially for Australia.
8. Rehan Ahmed - They really like Rehan Ahmed.
9. Ollie Robinson - And here is the second half of that very funny possibility.
10. Gus Atkinson - 91 mph is intoxicating.
11. Josh Tongue - And Josh Tongue looked pretty Test ready to me.

 

[Aislabie]

Well then

 

[pillowprocter]

Well then

World Cup? Lol

 

[Aislabie]

It's entirely possible that England might put out a squad with only one or two players under 30.

Although I guess by CSK rules that means they will win.

 

[Aislabie]

Here's the World Cup squad I would put out (this is not a prediction), in provisional batting order:

1. Jonny Bairstow - He's the powerplay hitter, as well as a backup keeper for Buttler just in case.
2. Dawid Malan - Has simply played too well to be left out of the team.
3. Joe Root - automatic pick here really.
4. Ben Stokes - you don't invite him back if you don't really want him, so I'm guessing they want him to be a surrogate Eoin Morgan. He also mustn't bowl.
5. Jos Buttler - I'd love him at four, but it doesn't completely work for the balance of the side, so five it is.
6. Will Jacks - I think he's this cycle's era to Moeen Ali, even though they'll probably just pick Moeen.
7. Jamie Overton - He's quietly turned himself into one of T20 cricket's biggest hitters, and could also fill the Plunkett role with the ball.
8. David Willey - Just a really solid, dependable player. I don't see how you can drop him.
9. Adil Rashid - He's still the best option in his role and it's an easy selection.
10. Mark Wood - If Archer is fit, he maybe pips Wood to the starting XI, but ideally you have both and alternate them through the semis.
11. Reece Topley - An excellent ODI bowler, must be protected at all costs.

• Phil Salt - a bit of a utility batter here, can fit in anywhere in the top seven.
• Chris Woakes - just beats out Moeen Ali for a place in my main 15 players
• Sam Curran - if the death bowling proves to be an issue at any point, he can be dropped straight into the XI to fix it.
• Jofra Archer - if he's fit, he plays four group games and then the knockouts.

• Harry Brook - Ben Stokes took his place in the team, so he took Liam Livingstone's place in the travelling reserves.
• Moeen Ali - as much as anything, it's important to have him around as everyone's best friend in the dressing room.
• Gus Atkinson - a backup quick in case one of Wood or Archer gets broken.

I edited this to include Harry Brook, who was really hard to fit in.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

When Ben Stokes plays World Cups England get to finals. Great news to be honest. It just means we have the Morgan hole to fill - maybe the Archer hole but who the hell knows if he will fill it himself or not.