So, if/when we lose this series 5-0…

…does Bazball go out with the bathwater? Will we sack McCullum and Stokes and bring in a “cautious” coach who will play old-school Test cricket and have Dom Sibley 20 not out at lunch on the first day? Or is it a case of no turning back now whatever happens, remembering we won 1 out of 17 Tests prior to that…

Can't see Bazball being completely flicked.

But Aus has adapted to counter Bazball, so England needs to adapt to Aus's adaption (if you know what I mean).

And I'd be very surprised (nay delighted) if England were to lose the series 5-0.

Bazball just needs to be a bit more nuanced.

skully wrote:Can't see Bazball being completely flicked.

But Aus has adapted to counter Bazball, so England needs to adapt to Aus's adaption (if you know what I mean).

And I'd be very surprised (nay delighted) if England were to lose the series 5-0.

I think we could well lose five reasonably close games, given our tendency to take the draw out of the equation. Depends who can be arsed with the dead rubbers, really.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Stokes does a Flintoff ‘09 and announces this series will be his last, if it’s clearly not going to go our way. If he doesn’t think his fitness can hold up until the return series in over two years’ time, he’s probably not going to be bothered with slogging around subcontinental tours and doing the easy job of blowing away Sri Lanka and the West Indies in May Tests back home.

I doubt the 0-5. Would be a first, which is no guarantee: records are made to be broken, etc.

But a bit of a talking-to needed, esp after this Test (considerably worse than First) for the England to put in a potentially winning performance.

Duckett's interview with Aggerers was a good one, I think. Made clear that he was trying to hit the ball along the ground for the ton, was a mishit. But generally, was not all defiant balls & bullshit, didn't appear disngenuous or prickly, simply saying they were trying to play a certain way and that was the approach they found best. ~ However, if they look at the batting and fielding (and some of the bowling) in this Test, and conclude they played up to their strengths, did the best they could, "take the positives" (as Vaughan and Co used to say - and believe it), they are in very serious denial.

I don't believe McCullum or Stokes are that thick, or blinded by dogma that they can't see what doesn't work - hence I doubt 0-5.

But then again, I am usually wrong!

The 0-5 is based on them taking the draw out of the equation, barring serious rain, so we have to find a way to actually win one. Our worst series in the past have been mitigated in a way by hanging on for losing draws, and we’ve even won series in a smash-and-grab way by getting such draws early on (Ashes ‘09, Yarps ‘98…)

But yeah, it still beats losing the “void” series in nine days of cricket without landing a blow, that’s Audley Harrison cricket if you like…

I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:The 0-5 is based on them taking the draw out of the equation, barring serious rain, so we have to find a way to actually win one. Our worst series in the past have been mitigated in a way by hanging on for losing draws, and we’ve even won series in a smash-and-grab way by getting such draws early on (Ashes ‘09, Yarps ‘98…)

But yeah, it still beats losing the “void” series in nine days of cricket without landing a blow, that’s Audley Harrison cricket if you like…

Well, yes, I'd factored that little teaser in!

Suffering the spectacle of the general collapse in most aspects of this Test (... so far, says the optimist on the shelf ...), it's easy to forget already how the First Test was nip and tuck. If the bowlers had had a bit more puff, a bit more skin on a spinning finger, a little bit more judicious restraint (or at least shot placement) in a couple of heads in the second innings, the home team might easily have won. Remember the Aussies had only 2 wickets left and 50 runs or so to go in the denouement. Had they not had Pat Cummings, the new all-rounder and a top captain, playing his captain's knock, had Moeen made it to the end (or much than halfway through), had Wood or someone (Tongue) been steaming in with vigour on Day 5, ... etc.

I say this not to raise false hopes - not my style - nor to overlook that the visitors, Starc included, are now cock-a-hoop and Stokes' men by contradistinction no doubt in a small degree of turmoil .... but we shouldn't forget the teams are more evenly matched than it has appeared in the past 36 hours of Englander hell.

And if Nathan Lyon is crocked for the series, and if the England selection is a bit more horses for courses and let the young and strong have a bit more head .... no puns intended, officer ....(I did half-facetiously suggest changing the entire bowling attack for the Second Test, remember - WITH a spinner! it was half-jesting, half a suggestion of positive thinking in direction of travel for SELECTION to go with positive thinking in play) .... then the series may still be down the Swannee, but not necessarily a whitewash as you now seem half-resigned to, beams.

But as ever - we'll see! There are other variables. Stokes' and his men's resilience, track, rain, degree of morale boost and evidence of consistent optimum skill levels of Austrialia's chosen team.

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Grouse times.

skully wrote:

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Grouse times.

Surely the ones that go to a decider are much better (can only think of ‘05 and ‘09 with the Ashes at stake, when did Australia last actually clinch it in the fifth Test?)

There is no way this will be 5-0.

It's probably going to finish up 3-2, one way or the other. Finishing 4-1 England's way is not yet out of the equation.

The loss of Lyon is going to be very difficult to cover.

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:

skully wrote:

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Grouse times.

Surely the ones that go to a decider are much better (can only think of ‘05 and ‘09 with the Ashes at stake, when did Australia last actually clinch it in the fifth Test?)

Nah, mate. Perhaps it was the fact I had to tolerate the woeful performance of Aus in the mid-80s, but 1989 will always be one of my favourite series. The late great Woody used to remind me that I would come into the office each morning during that series with my arms raised saying "boooooys".

Series like 05 and 09 become more classic in hindsight, but not enjoyable for me at the time. Just as you must've reveled in England's peerless performance in 2010-11 (ironically the series Ooze debuted in - Woody used to say he started his Test career with "one of the finest clips through midwicket you'd ever hope to see" - which hit the fence right in front of the Forum 5 at the SCG).

2005, 2009, 2013, and even 2019 were very frustrating for the millimetre losses and failures. Not enjoyable for Australian fans at all! I will forever remember 2005 as 1) a great admonishment to bowlers to keep their front foot behind the line; and 2) a great advertisement for the DRS. Ponting and Martyn between them suffered three critical lbw decisions that had involved bat first. Those days are gone, fortunately.

Hopefully yesterday’s performance will have put to rest any thoughts of Stokes calling it a day at the end of the series, proving he’s still a big factor as a player not just a specialist captain.

Whether Anderson or Broad will go to India, on the other hand…

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Wasn;t the rebel tour counterbalanced to some extent by that Packer Ashes in the late seventies when most of the Aussie greats had defected?

Red wrote:

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:I mean, worst Ashes series in my memory:

1) 13/14, just an unforgivable capitulation against a poor Aussie side, I remember calling it the Shitewash at the time.
2) 1989, 29 players and a rebel tour. Stick a pin in the Playfair and that’s next week’s side.
3) 21/22, the “void” series in Sturat’s view, over as a contest before we could blink.
4) 06/07, the first whitewash but it was the legends’ last stand, they had scores to settle…

At this moment it will do well to “top” any of those.

Wasn;t the rebel tour counterbalanced to some extent by that Packer Ashes in the late seventies when most of the Aussie greats had defected?

Well, I’m not old enough to remember that one, but 1989 was just a shitshow from start to finish, the announcement of the rebel tour with I think a couple of Tests to go just topped it off.

I think only Gower and Jack Russell played all six Tests for England, whereas the Aussies made only one change all series (leggie Hohns came in part way through for a seamer I think, or was it for Tim May?) The series also launched Jonathan Agnew’s broadcast career, after his county captain Gower promised to get him in for the sixth Test, but then was overruled by the other selectors who went for Alan Igglesden. Aggers knew he wouldn’t play for England again at that point and called it a day, a couple of years later he became BBC cricket correspondent and joined the TMS team, positions he holds to this day.

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:Hopefully yesterday’s performance will have put to rest any thoughts of Stokes calling it a day at the end of the series, proving he’s still a big factor as a player not just a specialist captain.

Whether Anderson or Broad will go to India, on the other hand…

Anderson is cooked. You know it, he knows it.

Oh and 1989? Australia’s ‘worst touring side ever’ according to all the Fleet Street pundits, pre-series.

Greg Campbell played the first match before making way for Hohns.

As for 1978-9, the less said the better. Your mob trounced our thirds, although from those Ashes we saw the emergence of Border and Hogg, and the development of Kim Hughes.

lardbucket wrote:

Norfolk Ian Goode wrote:Hopefully yesterday’s performance will have put to rest any thoughts of Stokes calling it a day at the end of the series, proving he’s still a big factor as a player not just a specialist captain.

Whether Anderson or Broad will go to India, on the other hand…

Anderson is cooked. You know it, he knows it.

I thought he bowled with little luck on another stinker of a pitch. The fifth day at Lord's was the first in the series where Jimmy did not have a bowl. I think he looked more tired than cooked.

I wonder if England will persist with dialling in flat tracks. Or maybe the Headingley curator won't follow orders and will present a traditional pitch. That will bring joy to the long suffering bowlers, though not Jimmy who will doubtless be rested.

Ahead of the Series I was really looking forward to watching Jimmy bowl in his conditions. Yep he got the cloud cover but the two flat decks dialled in this far offered nothing.

As others point out BazBall means England's innings are over quickly offering little respite to its bowlers.

I reckon GCS and Ooze's performance on Day 1 before Lunch was a bit underrated. Jimmeh and Sturat in particular bowled very well, hooped the ball about in the gloomy conditions and beat the bat numerous times.

But GCS with his modified stance, and Ooze with his reserved patience, stuck it out until Lunch and laid the platform for a 400+ total once the ball movement calmed down a bit.

Day 1, despite toss/conditions against us, is where the game was won, or at least not lost. Not day 5.

lardbucket wrote:There is no way this will be 5-0.

It's probably going to finish up 3-2, one way or the other. Finishing 4-1 England's way is not yet out of the equation.

The loss of Lyon is going to be very difficult to cover.

Well, 4-1 is now out of the equation. Murphy is scheduled for a baptism of fire. I doubt Brook and Root in particular will show him any respect ... perhaps that gives him a better chance than he'd have had if they were to have a look at him first, before going full Bazball.

lardbucket wrote:

lardbucket wrote:There is no way this will be 5-0.

It's probably going to finish up 3-2, one way or the other. Finishing 4-1 England's way is not yet out of the equation.

The loss of Lyon is going to be very difficult to cover.

Well, 4-1 is now out of the equation.  Murphy is scheduled for a baptism of fire.  I doubt Brook and Root in particular will show him any respect ... perhaps that gives him a better chance than he'd have had if they were to have a look at him first, before going full Bazball.

I am backing Murphy in.

... TO A DRIVEWAY?