Cricket 44: Abrar-Cadabra

[Raja]

They've really missed Lyon

[ljkeane]

That was pretty rubbish from Robinson and Broad. I get that they were going to swing for the fences at some point but at least make Australia bring some catchers up before you do.

[Jeor]

Gutted for Stokes, who almost dragged his side to victory. Agree Robinson and Broad gave their wickets away too cheaply. Tongue and Anderson with too much to do now, whereas you never know if Broad/Robinson had chipped another 30 runs off the chase.

[The Winged Shadow]

They are slowly chipping away. Getting nervous....

 

[Jeor]

Tongue and Anderson hanging in there - showing that Robinson and Broad really did go too early, they might yet have made it. And Lyon's 15 run partnership is really priceless.

[The Winged Shadow]

Bless this cursed thread

[Jeor]

Well there it is. Australia didn't cover themselves in glory on this last day. Nonsensical bowling plans - short balls everywhere to get pounded for 6, and even at the tailenders barely a ball hitting the stumps. England didn't do themselves any favours either with Robinson and Broad throwing it away with attempted pulls and Bairstow's brain fade.

And yet that's what makes the game so close, tense, and exciting.

Stokes is basically the only person to have really come away with an even greater reputation as a fearsome clutch player and power hitter.

[Raja]

The Khawaja-naisssance continues

[Raja]

at least sky is not subjecting me to micahel vaughn, which is a mercy

[The Winged Shadow]

34 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Well there it is. Australia didn't cover themselves in glory on this last day. Nonsensical bowling plans - short balls everywhere to get pounded for 6, and even at the tailenders barely a ball hitting the stumps. England didn't do themselves any favours either with Robinson and Broad throwing it away with attempted pulls and Bairstow's brain fade.

And yet that's what makes the game so close, tense, and exciting.

Stokes is basically the only person to have really come away with an even greater reputation as a fearsome clutch player and power hitter.

All the dumb pull shot+catches at the boundary from the tail kind of ended up justifying the tactics (to a degree). Specially if you know that they are gonna try to take it on. But yeah, very weird to see so many bumpers. I thought it was just set up for the yorker or maybe even the new ball (get them used to bouncers and then change it up with the new ball), but that never came.

Really good match. Both games have been excellent and it could've gone either way. Fielding standards have dropped for both sides though, which is a shame.

[Jeor]

6 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

All the dumb pull shot+catches at the boundary from the tail kind of ended up justifying the tactics (to a degree). Specially if you know that they are gonna try to take it on. But yeah, very weird to see so many bumpers. I thought it was just set up for the yorker or maybe even the new ball (get them used to bouncers and then change it up with the new ball), but that never came.

Really good match. Both games have been excellent and it could've gone either way. Fielding standards have dropped for both sides though, which is a shame.

Yes, I suppose Stokes, Robinson and Broad were all out to pull shots in the end. But I just don't see why it would take 9 sixes from Stokes before Australia thought to try something different. They did in the end (bowling wide, drying up the runs) but I suppose here they were really hurt by the loss of Lyon, who would have been the natural go-to person if the quicks were getting demolished.

2-0 is tough on England when both games came so close. Australia were sloppier here (dropped catches, late innings batting collapses) but will be glad to escape with a victory after Lyon effectively reduced them to 10 men. Once again England will rue their chances. In the First Test, neither Smith or Labuschagne scored, and in the Second, Australia were a man down without their frontline spinner. Bright spots are Duckett and Stokes, plus the bowling unit (first day aside) did relatively well.

[Jeor]

Looking ahead to Headingley, which has been a less happy ground for the Aussies, I think England are going to come back real strong.

Australia are fortunate in that having Cameron Green really softened the impact of losing Lyon in the second innings from a bowling workload perspective. Backing up for another Test on Thursday, assuming a fresh Todd Murphy comes in for Lyon, I'm guessing a rested Scott Boland will come back in for Hazlewood. Cummins obviously is a permanent choice and you have to say Starc gave the attack an X-factor and should be retained. Yes, he is expensive and that's what you get with him, but he also bowled the most dangerous balls (plus as said previously he strengthens batting order much more). 

England are obviously giving thought to bringing in Mark Wood for Headingley given some of Stokes' comments about wanting to play him at Lords. It's clear that England need to up the speeds on their pace attack and Tongue was the most incisive of the bowlers against the Australians (this shouldn't be a surprise given the Aussies struggled mightily with Jofra Archer four years ago). So if I were England I'd be going with an attack of Tongue, Wood, Broad, and then possibly a spinner (plus Stokes). I don't think Moeen is really the answer in the spin department but if they can find someone, the variation would be welcome. Anderson you could leave out on account of back-to-back Tests. 

In the batting department for both sides, it's relatively settled and there shouldn't be any changes. The top six of both sides have all scored at least half-centuries except for Labuschagne (who scored a 47), Green (who has to stay for balance reasons) and Pope (who scored a 42).

[IheartIheartTesla]

What a great match. After a somewhat sonorous start, we had Lyon's 15 run vigil, the completely legal dismissal of Bairstow, Stokes going bonkers, Broad being the pantomime villain that he excels at etc. Could only have been made better if England lost by less than 15 runs. The inevitable teeth-gnashing after the match about 'spirit of cricket' was also joyful to read about. 

[Maltaran]

Bairstow’s dismissal is basically equivalent to a Mankad, IMO, in terms of the difference between the laws and the spirit of the game. It’s even had Rishi Sunak chip in, although hopefully it won’t become as diplomatically sensitive as Bodyline

The Ashes 2023: Bairstow dismissal just not cricket, says Rishi Sunak https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66089658

[Raja]

Have no interest in what that ghoul thinks of it, tbh

it would be absolutely hilarious if it had any diplomatic consequences, but I highly doubt it. Stokes himself said lots will be written on it but he wants to move on

Edited July 3, 2023 by Raja

[williamjm]

On 7/2/2023 at 3:45 PM, Jeor said:

Gutted for Stokes, who almost dragged his side to victory. Agree Robinson and Broad gave their wickets away too cheaply. Tongue and Anderson with too much to do now, whereas you never know if Broad/Robinson had chipped another 30 runs off the chase.

I did wonder if the Australians might have been starting to think that making Ben Stokes angry was a strategic error, he did seem to be inspired by the situation. It was starting to feel like a 'you guys are history' situation, although he couldn't quite get England over the line.

England perhaps regretting the relative weakness of their tale, if they had Moeen or Woakes coming it at 8 rather than Stuart Broad (who to be fair, did bat well with Stokes) then I think their chances of victory would have been a bit higher.

[Jeor]

8 hours ago, williamjm said:

I did wonder if the Australians might have been starting to think that making Ben Stokes angry was a strategic error, he did seem to be inspired by the situation. It was starting to feel like a 'you guys are history' situation, although he couldn't quite get England over the line.

England perhaps regretting the relative weakness of their tale, if they had Moeen or Woakes coming it at 8 rather than Stuart Broad (who to be fair, did bat well with Stokes) then I think their chances of victory would have been a bit higher.

Yes definitely, provoking Stokes was a terrible thing to do and the Aussies should have known that was poking the bear. I'm somewhat surprised they didn't already have a better plan for him (given the Headingley history) and seemed somewhat taken aback by the first 50-100 runs of onslaught. You would have thought that sort of scenario they would have heavily planned for.

On the whole Bairstow thing, I think it's blown a bit out of proportion by the fact that England came close and it might have been the difference-maker. I think everyone agrees it's within the rules, but possibly dubious when measured up against the "spirit of cricket". I think once you move past the rules and are making arguments based on the spirit of cricket, that shows that in terms of the argument England are already acknowledging that Bairstow did something stupid and they're relying on the largess of their opponents, which is not the strongest position to be coming from. Less so when you consider Broad's "spirit of cricket" not walking when edging to first slip, McCullum's runout of Murali, etc. It's a very amorphous argument to be deploying and you can jump down lots of rabbit holes.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

England are already acknowledging that Bairstow did something stupid and they're relying on the largess of their opponents, which is not the strongest position to be coming from.

Its been a long time since I've cared about cricket but I wouldn't ever expect the Australian cricket team to prioritize 'best sportsmanship' over 'winning the match' lol. And its well short of bodyline or underarm. If you know you're playing against ruthless pricks then don't take any risks, treat that crease as your lifeline until play is well and truly dead.

[ljkeane]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

On the whole Bairstow thing, I think it's blown a bit out of proportion by the fact that England came close and it might have been the difference-maker. I think everyone agrees it's within the rules, but possibly dubious when measured up against the "spirit of cricket". I think once you move past the rules and are making arguments based on the spirit of cricket, that shows that in terms of the argument England are already acknowledging that Bairstow did something stupid and they're relying on the largess of their opponents, which is not the strongest position to be coming from.

Eh, I mean Carey was deliberately trying to circumvent the contest between bat and ball and catch Bairstow not paying attention on a technicality. It was stupid from Bairstow but it's also a pretty shithouse way to get someone out. I don't think it's a massive stretch to call it not it the spirit of cricket. Australia can do it if they want but getting a bit precious about the opposition fans not liking it if you do something that cynical seems a bit much.

The McCullum run out of Murali wasn't exactly the same. The Bairstow one 999 time out of a 1000 the ball would have been dead but the Murali one the throw was coming in so you'd generally expect the ball to be live but he clearly wasn't trying to take a run. McCullum has said previous to this whole incident that he regretted running him out though. At the Spirit of Cricket lecture funnily enough.

[The Winged Shadow]

Hard to take this Spirit of Cricket bullshit seriously after New Zealand got robbed at the world cup. Spirit of Cricket died that day if it was ever alive in the first place.