It's just not cricket

[DRT]

Prediction time:

How many runs will England score by the end of their first innings?

DRT says 286.

[djewesbury]

That would require them to get another 100 runs. You sure about that? New ball due in 12 overs...

Hell let's be optimistic. Bell surely has to wake up. I'm sure they can add 80. So call it 260. Oops, not optimistic.

[DRT]

I think Bell & Stokes will have a good hour or so, putting on 50-60 runs, and then them and the tail will go down like dominoes for <10 each.

[djewesbury]

I think Bell & Stokes will have a good hour or so, putting on 50-60 runs, and then them and the tail will go down like dominoes for <10 each.

Oh I think not. The first hour will be excruciating and low-scoring. Stokes will go after about 25 minutes. When the new ball comes out they'll fall apart. Perhaps a stand for 25 from Broad.
But maybe they'll bowl amazingly.

[DRT]

But maybe they'll bowl amazingly.

I don't get this. Aren't artists supposed to be manic depressives? You seem to be an optimist! Ah! Delusional, that also fits.

[djewesbury]

I only said maybe. Maybe they'll win in Melbourne once the series is lost. Who knows. But I'm not waiting for them to do anything amazing in this innings.

[DRT]

Forgive me, but, in the context of the last three weeks, "maybe they'll bowl amazingly" is at best optimistic and very close to delusional.

[djewesbury]

Yeah well maybe the spidercam will snap and fall on Geoffrey Boycott's head before the game. Who knows? Who can say?

[DRT]

Yeah well maybe the spidercam will snap and fall on Geoffrey Boycott's head before the game. Who knows? Who can say?

We can only hope.

[DRT]

10 runs into day 3 and Bell's gone. Oops!

[LGTrotter]

I might need to rethink my guess, 400 might be nearer.

[djewesbury]

I'm sure they can add 80. So call it 260.

Thank you.

[djewesbury]

Ireland now have three trophies from their latest three formats / tournaments. Just saying, in case any England fans need someone to support. Test status by 2020 is the goal; can England last that long? And how long before Boyd Rankin asks can he come back to Ireland, like Ed Joyce did?

[LGTrotter]

Well that was just awful.

I hope we don't have to play Ireland any time soon, there could be an upset. Ireland might not win by an innings.

[LGTrotter]

There are six sessions to play, how many will be played? I say 4.

[DRT]

I think the Auzzies could come out swinging like a 20/20 team tomorrow to pile on early runs with the hope of finishing it in three sessions. A run rate of four in the first session would get them close to 500 in front and from what we have seen England would probably capitulate without so much as a whimper.

So I'll say 3 sessions.

[DRT]

118 minutes to get to 503 in front, Cook gone for a duck first ball and Carberry out for not much. My prediction of three sessions might have been generous!

[djewesbury]

What time tonight (GMT) will England lose the Ashes?
I say 4.03.

[DRT]

5:37

[LGTrotter]

I think they'll get past lunch, dunno what time that is but I would say 6:37.

I sacked several of the batsmen, the keeper and a bowler today while in conversation at work today.

[djewesbury]

I think they'll get past lunch, dunno what time that is but I would say 6:37.

I sacked several of the batsmen, the keeper and a bowler today while in conversation at work today.

You kept the captain?!?

[DRT]

Is it not about time that Cook resigned? He has been appalling as both a captain and a leading batsman.

[DRT]

Our posts crossed!

[LGTrotter]

Cook stays. And please for the love of God do not suggest that the monstrous tool Bell gets the captaincy.

Management has to go.

[DRT]

Cook stays.

I am interested to know why. My understanding is that the performance of a cricket team is largely dependant on the selectors and the captain. No one has been complaining about the selection, so why is the captain immune from blame for the worst England display in a couple of decades?

[LGTrotter]

Is it not about time that Cook resigned? He has been appalling as both a captain and a leading batsman.

Cook has had a lean time, but he still scores runs. The bowlers have just worked him out a bit and he will not score as freely from now on. But he does have a Zen like concentration which will get him more huge scores.
As a captain he is a plank but that never stopped Strauss, Hussian, Gatting, I could go on, quick wittedness is rather frowned upon in English captains.

[DRT]

I must have missed the bit where he was scoring runs. He seems to be immune from criticism from supporters and commentators alike. From what I have seen in this series he has been absent as a batsman and ineffectual as a captain, yet all the criticism seems to be directed at other players, some of which have performed better (or not as bad) as he has. If ever a team needed a leader it is now, and he just isn't there.

[LGTrotter]

I must have missed the bit where he was scoring runs.

then cast your mind back to the previous Ashes series. He still averages nearly 50 and he has made a number of really big scores. Double hundreds are few and far between and he has scored several. Captains tend to run by committee, the keeper, an old bowler (Swann in this case I fancy) and off the field there is a great slew of hangers-on in the management who take a bigger lead in training and tactics than the captain ever will. But if you want to sack him I'll back you at the water cooler committee meeting.

[DRT]

I don't want to sack him, I'm simply questioning why you wouldn't. He's not my team's captain.

My take on what you are explaining is that a cricket captain is as influential as those in other sports and is primarily a figurehead. If he isn't expected to take responsibility for the dire performance of his team then that's fine. But that isn't the impression that the world is given about what it means to be an international cricket captain.

[LGTrotter]

A figurehead? Sort of. Captains are almost never given the job on the basis of ability, the one exception I can think of is Brearly. I don't see who the alternative is. And no it is not the function of the captain to fall on his sword at these times.

[djewesbury]

Derek's uncanny winning streak continues, I think!

[djewesbury]

I disagree with Owen. A captain decides who will bowl the next over and sets the field. If it goes wrong it's his fault. It doesn't matter who's chirping in his ear telling him what to do, it's his call. It's not a committee post. Cook is supreme commander of the team once they're on the pitch. And I don't know why you missed out Vaughan as a captain who was picked on the basis of his captaining skills. He was very good.

I would not suggest Bell as captain but I think, of the veterans, he has least to be ashamed about. I think we need a genuinely fast bowler now, a Steen or Morkel or Johnson or McGrath type who has power and stamina and - here's the thing - reliability. Without that we're not able to win away from home, on flat pitches that don't suit us. We were lazy in summer and scraped a win on pitches queered in our favour, for turn or seam, and in conditions that produce swing.

[DRT]

Derek's uncanny winning streak continues, I think!

If it wasn't for my sore knee I would volunteer to be captain.

[DRT]

I disagree with Owen.

I am pleased about that.

For a few decades I have wondered why the sacking or resignation of an England captain gets number one slot on BBC News. It has always seemed ridiculous to me and Owen's position on Cook and what it means to be the England captain had me even more confused because it sounded like it wasn't a real job and had no accountability.

One thing I did hear today, from Mike Atherton (I think), was that Cook inherited Vaughan's team of old old farts/pre-ma-donnas so should be given the chance to build his own team from the best of the new crop. That makes sense to me and is a good reason to at least give him a chance rather than sacking him. I get the distinct impression that at least half of the current team should be put out to pasture now. The question is whether or not anyone has the balls to do it.

[djewesbury]

That's very true. I'd take Atherton's opinion on most things - the modern Brearley in many ways, a genuine intellectual of the game, I think.

So if the aim is to have Cook take a sort of Nasser Hussain role, build up a team for a new captain to then take over in the way that Michael Vaughan did, then who do we need to turn into glue now?

We have three players left from 2005, Anderson, Pietersen and Bell. Anderson is no longer reliable. I'm not convinced he won us the Ashes in the summer. Let him go. Pietersen is a liability and seems determined not to help the team win. Let him go. Bell is crucial now; he's the only one I'd keep.

Swann might have had his finest moments. There have been a lot of them and he should be proud of himself, very few bowlers have got so many wickets with their first over, or their first delivery. But he's an old man too. Broady probably has a season or two left. Let him stay. I'm not sure that any of the rest of the bowlers have what it takes, Panesar included.

Prior used to be a great man with the bat and behind the stumps. Goodbye, Matt. There are plenty waiting to take his place.

So the future builds around Root, Stokes, perhaps Kieswetter (though I still think he fails when he gets to the big stage), Buttler, maybe Woakes.. Carberry is a good opener, I think we need to keep him and let Root bat with Bell and learn his trade.

I'm at a loss regarding a fast bowling attack though.

[DRT]

I'm at a loss regarding a fast bowling attack though.

Perhaps you could persuade Mitchell Johnson to come on a three week holiday to London, thereby making himself eligible for selection?

[LGTrotter]

I disagree with Owen.

I had no idea this was allowed. Or that Derek was allowed to be glad about it.

I don't know why you missed out Vaughan as a captain who was picked on the basis of his captaining skills. He was very good.

And Vaughan was rightly ditched when his batting fell off at the end of his career. Cook is not at the end of his career. The point I think I was making is that you pick the best players then decide who is to be captain. There is not a pool of specialist captains from which to pick, as you might pick a bowler or keeper.

I would not suggest Bell as captain but I think, of the veterans, he has least to be ashamed about.

Now this I must take issue with. Over the last couple of seasons Bell has been very reliable. However prior to this he had the longest run of half-witted innings you could wish to see. He would reliably score runs when there was a big platform and never score a thing when it mattered. He would score a career saving innings against Bangladesh women's reserves and be 'plucky' but entirely useless the rest of the time.
I do not think that England's bowling is too bad but it would be good to have a genuine quick. But they do not come along that often. I also note that the much vaunted Mitchell did not take the wickets at Perth, his ideal track. Anderson is coming to the end but I wouldn't push him to the exit just yet, think Lillee at the end of his career, barely medium pace but still taking plenty of wickets. Broad is not that quick or reliable any more and his batting is erratic but I suppose he stays. Swann isn't turning it that much now but has learned his craft well and spinners do go on longer. I still quite fancy Finn and Onions.
Buttler and Kieswetter I am not sure about in the longer form of the game. Pietersen has to go.

Atherton? Scarcely the philosopher prince that Daniel has portrayed. And captains do use the experience of the senior players on the field as well as the manager and coaches various in the breaks. I am sure there is an example but I can't think of a recent England captain who resigned and left the team due exclusively to a poor team performance

Rambling now, what do I know? Not much except that I would agree with more of Daniel's opinions than this post might suggest. Except Bell, I'm right about Bell.

[DRT]

I still quite fancy Finn and Onions.

Is that a Japanese-French soup?

[LGTrotter]

I still quite fancy Finn and Onions.

Is that a Japanese-French soup?

I'll set 'em up, you knock 'em down.

[jdaw1]

A question for the experts where did England go wrong? In particular, arrange the following in order from ‘wrongest’ to ‘least wrong’: •Â batting; •Â bowling; •Â fielding.

[LGTrotter]

I refuse the title of expert. However;

1)Batting
2)Batting
3)Batting

A touch of fielding (OK quite a bit of fielding), and a lack of the killer instinct in bowling. But I feel sorry for the bowlers, they never seem to have had enough runs to play with.

Oh and a big fat helping of management.

[djewesbury]

I disagree with Owen.

Our batting was bad but it's actually always moderately bad. We scrape by on one or two showy innings, just like Australia do; we don't pile up innings of 500/6 declared, like the Indians or Sri Lankans do (unless we're on tour in the West Indies); different batsmen perform in different matches, at different grounds. What made the difference was that this time the bowlers didn't ride in and rescue us as they have done for the last eight years or so. So the main culprits were the bowlers. I really can't see a future if we go with Owen's prescription. Anderson cannot get a wicket outside England, yet we're expected to stick with him in the expectation that he'll transmute into Dennis Lillee. I don't think so; if the ball's not swinging, he's no use. And Swann is stubborn - if his tactics aren't working, he sticks with them. Broad has been much more productive and he bats.

As for the gripe about Bell, I fail to see how his performance from three or four years ago is at all relevant. Honestly, you sound like Boycott, going on about Bell not getting significant innings when it counts. Since that complaint was made, he's made big scores in crucial matches. He's become a real key part of the batting attack.

Apart from one innings, I think our fielding was as consistent as it usually is. England are a good catching team; but they can't catch the ball if the bowlers don't make the chances.

[DRT]

A question for the experts where did England go wrong? In particular, arrange the following in order from ‘wrongest’ to ‘least wrong’: •Â batting; •Â bowling; •Â fielding.

I also, and obviously, refuse to accept the title of expert but would offer the following:

• misguided arrogance;
• playing cricket;
• lack of ability to recognise the former.

Pieterson is the epitome of the above. I watched an interview before the first test where he tried to convince his audience that he isn't arrogant, he just has enormous and unquestionable belief in his own ability. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is currently sitting asking himself why everyone else let him down. Broad and Swann are no doubt doing similar, but perhaps not on the same scale.

[djewesbury]

Pieterson is the epitome of the above. I watched an interview before the first test where he tried to convince his audience that he isn't arrogant, he just has enormous and unquestionable belief in his own ability. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is currently sitting asking himself why everyone else let him down. Broad and Swann are no doubt doing similar, but perhaps not on the same scale.

I am no fan of KP. But I've seen him score 158 and loved it. The thing is, he knows how to do that and in a good game he can play in a way that nobody else in the world can match - really, I think that's true. The trouble is, his ability is quite narrow. Occasionally, when it has mattered, he has been able to play the kind of patient, slow innings that has helped the team coalesce around him. But far too infrequently. If Plan A doesn't work, far too often Kevin just puts it down to 'bad luck' and insists he's going to carry on 'playing his natural game'.
I would say his problem is not so much arrogance as selfishness. He is not a team man.

[djewesbury]

His county career demonstrates my last point, I think.

[DRT]

I would say his problem is not so much arrogance as selfishness. He is not a team man.

I don't think we are disagreeing in any way. Rhymes with "anchor".

[LGTrotter]

OK, where do I begin.

Pietersen; quite agree with all Daniel has said, I think the most irritating thing about him (not Daniel, he irritates me for other reasons) is that he can play like an artist, he destroys attacks; and yet he plays like a eejut nearly all the time and doesn't care. But he needs to go for the team. I think.

Batting; yes the batting has had problems since the summer and the Ashes in England flattered the batting. But have a look at the England innings in Australia; batting is the problem. Not enough runs.

Bowling; Anderson is getting on but he's OK, next year? Maybe not. Broad is very talented, but I maintain is erratic and I can't remember the last time I saw him bat that well. There are still plenty of other bowlers waiting in the wings, I have mentioned two; there are others. Swann was not going to do much on Australian wickets, but a spinner needs some runs in the bank, again its the BATTING...

Bell; I think Daniel said pretty much what I did. I just wouldn't have given him the same number of outings to find the batsmen in him. I also wonder if you gave any decent county batsmen the number of caps Bell has had whether statistics would say that eventually he would have to do something useful. Not from Boycs but my own observations.

No the fielding was not up to its usual exemplary form, but was OK. They dropped enough at important moments to change the tempo of games, England doesn't usually do that. But they were perpetually defending tiny targets; its the BATTING...

So I would stick to my original line up; batting, batting, batting.

And don't get too excited about all the players you will show the door, Australia is tough and like England this summer I think the current 3-0 flatters them.

[djewesbury]

I disagree with Owen.

[LGTrotter]

I would say his problem is not so much arrogance as selfishness. He is not a team man.

I don't think we are disagreeing in any way. Rhymes with "anchor".

Didn't I see a lovely photo of you and the man? I thought you looked a little glum, but then perhaps I would if I was trapped between Boris and KP.

[DRT]

I would say his problem is not so much arrogance as selfishness. He is not a team man.

I don't think we are disagreeing in any way. Rhymes with "anchor".

Didn't I see a lovely photo of you and the man? I thought you looked a little glum, but then perhaps I would if I was trapped between Boris and KP.

Guilty.