It’s hard to know if the 2023 Ashes dust has settled now that we are a week or so removed.

“Dust settled”—is merely a metaphorical phrase offered to dampen the embers that remain bright after an all-together antagonistic and tumultuous Ashes.

Before we dig deeper into this series' ins and outs and whether Team England can truly save Test cricket , I believe it is worth calling out a glaring hole in Englands' claims of moral supremacy.

Simply put, when Australia tours England, they are undeniably competitive, whereas when England visits Australia, they are indubitably absent from the contest.

In the last three Ashes series on Australian soil, Team England has recorded 5–0, 4–0, and 4–0 thumpings—and all without government intervention or the likes of Piers Morgan blindly stirring the patriotic pot.

But—and this is a big but—remember this: Englands’ sole goal is to rewrite the Test cricket playbook using their patented Bazball brand. We were told plainly. Results matter little, clearly. And, to go a step or two further, they will in fact save Test cricket by bringing their own brand of entertainment to this listless soul.

How’s that for claiming the moral high ground? Remembering their track record when they are forced to travel the same distance as their visitors.

I would offer that, typically, the audience usually measures entertainment, not the performers. But, hey, this is a revolution.

If you don’t subscribe, that’s OK, but why not? No, really; hit the button below to join. Or, if you do subscribe and feel like supporting me beyond a free subscription, do the same, and I will be forever grateful and in your debt.

Subscribe now

There seemed little hope of resolution; till the bitter end, there were utterances of contempt and equally strong grievances from both teams.

For England, cricket chaos held court for most of the series, with Test match normalcy pushed aside with conceited contempt.

Australia, alternatively, decided on a hybrid version, mixing the status quo with more unconventional methods.

When the curtain finally came down at the Oval, it was left to one of the series’ most prickly practitioners to read the last rites, Stuart Broad.

Alex Carey, an unfortunate victim in all this, edged to the petulant Jonny Bairstow, who managed to maintain control of the catch, giving England a deserving series-levelling victory.

What about the exquisite irony for all to wonder at! Broad, Carey, and Bairstow— the infamous Lords triumvirate coming together one last time. A pantomime swan song!

Bairstow has rightly received a good deal of criticism for his level of performance, particularly his wicketkeeping. However, this wasn’t shared by Wisden, who had him in the ‘team of the series’, ahead of Carey. The 'English blinkers' remain firmly in place.

Share

It was nigh on 6.30 p.m. local time—and if Joe Root had his way, there would be another three or four hours to play. This was London, though, not Manchester.

There would be no denying a retiring Stuart Broad.

The bandana-clad pacer had announced his retirement the previous evening, calling stumps on a remarkable career—of all the stats offered, the one that stands out to me is that Broad joins Shane Warne as the only Test cricketers to go past 600 wickets and 3000 runs. An outstanding achievement.

And, you could say Broad stands at the top of their list as he made a Test match century, where Warne didn’t—although, Warne did get as close as you can!

Share

This was a series littered with mistakes, and then there were moments of brilliance. The two contradicted themselves repeatedly, maintaining the narrative of a frustratingly confusing Ashes.

The brilliance resided in several places: Zak Crawley’s speedy and brilliant assault at Old Trafford; Mark Wood's disturbing pace at Headingley; Ben Stokes herculean batting at Lords; and Usman Khawaja’s continued serenity. As for the mistakes, there’s no need to highlight that two highly skilled teams—both with an axe to grind—are bound to induce errors.

So, a 2–2 scoreline, a draw, the result despised most by the Bazball-led English. The visitors retain the Ashes—holding them now since 2017.

In three of the five Tests, Australia contended with unresponsive pitches, clearly tailored towards England’s expansive batting game. Pat Cummins also called incorrectly on four consecutive occasions—England’s decision to bat at Edgbaston now looms as a series-deciding mistake. Given a second chance, there’s little doubt they would reverse that decision.

Add to this Nathan Lyon’s injury, which proved to be a bitter pill for the visitors to swallow, eventually forcing them to play an illogical combination in Manchester. Todd Murphy’s omission was an unforced error on their part.

All in all, Australia was dealt its share of shonky cards.

Across the hall, England were severely handicapped by Ben Stokes inability to bowl and the pre-series injury to left-arm tweaker Jack Leach. For England, playing five bowlers is as important as flashing the first ball of the day through cover at a million miles an hour. Clearly, Stokes injury unbalanced this well-drilled unit.

England will also rue the fact that their premier quick, Mark Wood, sustained an elbow injury while playing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). Very little has been said about Wood’s load management prior to the Ashes. I would hope this ill-judged preparation would be tabled in the reviews.

And, of course, there was the inclement weather in Manchester! Who could forget that?

Umbrage could be equally taken in both camps.

Feeling generous? Great. Why not gift a SpeakingNick subscription to someone who might enjoy the content.

Give a gift subscription

Both sides displayed unwavering perseverance by sticking to their pre-determined plans, which, for me, became the series' guiding light. They pursued this to the point of absolute distraction.

Brendon McCullum and Andrew McDonald are contemporary cricket coaches. Both avoid the "do as I did" mantra, preferring to hand responsibility to the player after arming them with all the information they will need. They share a belief in being prepared and showing trust in their charges.

To me, it's interesting that pundits in Australia still question McDonald's methods while others around the world laud McCullum for this approach.

The cricket world was abuzz with comments about Bazball and whether England could maintain their aggression against an experienced and highly skilled Australian attack. Many suggested—me included—that this approach would be unsustainable.

Well, as Miguel de Cervantes said, "The proof's in the pudding."

Indeed, there was no looking back after—batter of the series—Zak Crawley emphatically cover-drove the series’ first ball for four.

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

England’s batting game was unmissable. The scoreboard never stood still; blink and you miss. It was undeniable. While led by the sublime Khawaja, Australia aimed to uphold the traditional virtues of Test match batting, creating a calming sense of orthodoxy amidst the chaos—whatever orthodoxy represents now.

It’s interesting to note that both sides detoured from their respective approaches due to forced selection shifts.

England introduced Chris Woakes at Headingley primarily to lengthen England’s batting and to give Mark Wood some cover by bowling ‘holding overs’, often at difficult times in Australia’s batting innings.

Mitch Marsh received his opportunity at the expense of an injured Cameron Green, presumably due to his excessive ‘bouncer loads’ at Lords. It seemed like Australia undermined Green’s bowling abilities after casting him in an enforcer role.

Woakes had not played a single Test in the Bazball era and his character could not be more at odds with the contrived nuances that the regime demands.

The 34-year-old Woakes brought the austere virtues of stirringly steady seam and swing at a ‘driving-to-the-speed-limit’ pace. His bowling at the Oval was exemplary. Internally frowned upon, but nothing short of exemplary! Woakes cut down Australia’s fourth-innings chase when others around him were flagging.

A thunderous first-innings Headingley century brought Mitch Marsh to the party. Not one to turn down a celebratory invite, Marsh was sublime from ball one and helped craft an excellent partnership with Travis Head.

If Marsh were born in Putney and not Perth, I have no doubt he would find his way into the Bazball sphere.

Both Woakes and Marsh changed the series’ trajectory in their own ways. In Woakes case, the player-of-the-series award from only three games is testament to his immediate and dramatic impact.

Injuries can also help selectors.

Share

And so another Ashes story ends as it began, with uncertainty and intrigue. An epic series full of twists and turns leaves everyone with more questions than answers.

Will the Australian selectors stick with a winning combination? Albeit an ageing one. They are the World Test Champions.

Can England propagate its Bazball approach in their bowling, and how will they fill the holes left by Stuart Broad and, eventually, Jimmy Anderson?

For Australia, will Pat Cummins’ continue as captain? If not, who are the candidates?

How long will Nathan Lyon play? Australia, if they didn’t already, now understand how important Lyon is to their team.

The future is unclear, but one thing is certain: the past gifted us a sensational summer of cricket, showcasing the very best of Test match cricket. More of the same, please.

Genuine question:

"Are England actually undermining Test cricket?"

If you don’t subscribe to my Substack, that’s OK, but why not? No, really; hit the button below to join the crew. Or, if you do subscribe and feel like supporting me beyond a free subscription, do the same, and I will always be grateful and in your debt.

Subscribe now

The procrastination was due to not knowing where to start.

Truth be told, it felt like I was losing my mind after the Old Trafford Test. It ended a draw, Manchester weather got the better of both sides; go figure!

So. Australia retain the Ashes with a dishonourable draw, and England fail to regain the Ashes, which they haven’t held since 2017.

Fair summary? "Actually, not really!"

Australia’s been thrown from pillar to post for its part in the Old Trafford Test. The weather interruption now being described as ‘criminal."

Agreed, Australia were soundly beaten for three of the four days. England bossed the hosts around, bazballing them to all corners with the bat. Then, continually breaking promising partnerships with ball in hand—no question.

Dishonourable though? How can that be?

Spare a thought for Mitchell Marsh and Cameron Green, the two all-rounders from the West—remember, it never rains in Perth!

You could argue—borrowing English reasoning—that both were denied playing game-saving innings; Marsh could have celebrated back-to-back centuries with two gallons of Stella on a balmy Manchester Sunday. And the burgeoning Green might have been content to tick another box in his Test cricket education with a supporting partnership innings. Spare a thought for them.

Share

The English narrative smells of a disturbing delusional mindset.

Australia exited Old Trafford stage-left. England banged their hollow chests and carried on like pork chops (I wish I knew the true meaning of this ocker saying).

It was like Australia rolled into a fast-food drive-thru.

"Can I take your order, please?"

"Yes, thank you. We’re in the crap in this cricket match; sheeting rain, please, with a side of irony. Thank you."

What was England left to do?

Well, Ben Stokesy and his bazballers were left rueing what might have been and sharpening their self-congratulatory virtues with the help of England’s nauseating punditry.

This series was theirs to win. The script had been confidently crafted; nothing would deny a home victory. The Ashes would be rightfully reclaimed on imperial soil and Piers Morgan would be left to pick on someone else. Thank god.

I feel like I need the right of council to recuse myself from the narrative due to an unhealthy bias towards the opposition's position. When all is said and done, I am English!

It’s all too much, though. Spluttering about how it feels and reads leads me to a position that feels akin to collaborating with the enemy.

England’s position is smug. They present as collectively entitled and privileged. Conceited. Arrogant. Disrespectful.

Best, I stop there.

Every press conference is overflowing with overstated confidence.

"What the fuck do you guys know?"

Joe Root wants the rules changed mid-game. "It’s light until 10pm at night."

Every professional cricketer I have known is a rabid clock-watcher. Overtime is scorned in this line of work. Root would be no exception. Completely delusional.

Hang on, England is actually changing Test cricket.

If England lose—yes, they lost the first two Tests—it feels like they won. Stumpings are no longer a fair-game dismissal. Contentious catches are fair when they manage to hold them, not the other way around!

Winning now carries no relevance—how would Ian Botham manage this? It’s about entertainment and, get this, saving Test cricket.

Saving it from what?

Give a gift subscription

Fortunately, sport is undeniable; it has no problem uncovering a full gambit of emotions from both the actors and the audience alike. There have to be winners and losers. It is a brutal and uncompromising business.

Here's a quote from business that can be readily translated to sport.

"An entrepreneur is a man who knows he can fail, but he does not accept to fail before he actually fails, and when he fails, he learns from his errors and moves on."

The cricket to date has been compelling. Neither side has managed to separate themselves from the other—Old Trafford accepted.

I, for one, would like to get back to the contests within the game.

Stuart Broad and David Warner.

Which of the two captains will read the game and react when needed?

Mark Wood and Steve Smith—who will prevail? Remember Smith's record at the Oval?

Can Joe Root get past Pat Cummins and play a 'big innings?'

How will Todd Murphy—assuming he plays—handle Root and Harry Brook? England’s best players of spin.

Can Zak Crawley back up his extraordinary performance at Old Trafford?

Please everybody, back to the cricket, there’s much to play for.

Oh. Will it rain in South London, and who’s fault will it be this time?

England, as has become their wish, announced their final XI early, and in their minds, it was done Bazball decisively, making just one change after their series-saving win at Headingley. As expected, Jimmy Anderson replaced the ineffective Ollie Robinson. Which begs the question: who will be England’s enforcer at Old Trafford?

Joking aside. Mrs.Robinson you may not be missed.

Across the corridor, Australia will choose a more conservative route—seeming likely to delay naming their final XI until the coin toss. Quite the role-reversal from previous iterations.

David Warner will remain at the top of the order. Mitchell Marsh is set to continue as the all-rounder after an excellent game in Leeds. And I expect Australia to remain true to their want to always play a front-line spinner—Todd Murphy will be hoping for more meaningful overs at Old Trafford.

Leaving just one change—Josh Hazlewood to replace Scott Boland.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

So why hasn’t England chosen to replace Ollie Pope?

It reads like a fair question to me.

Naturally, England will bluff past this, as they have done for most of the series when it comes to pivotal selection matters.

A 1-2 deficit and knowing they have to win both remaining Tests seems like a pretty desperate situation—I say, “desperate times demand clarity of thought.”

Ask any coach in world cricket if having a reliable and productive number three batter is high on their wish list, and the answer will always be yes. No question.

So why not the same for Team England? Does Bazball exclude the conformity of cricket history?

From as far back as Bradman to the recently departed Ricky Ponting—yes, both Australians—great players have routinely occupied this acutely challenging position in the batting order.

It’s true, opening batters have been known to perish first ball before—in Rory Burns case, the first ball of the 2021/22 series. England’s then number three, Dawid Malan, departed soon after, as did Joe Root. England found themselves 3–11 and out of the game before they had time to blink.

And then on the flip side. In 1989, Australia’s Mark Taylor and Geoff Marsh opened the innings and batted the entire first day, leaving their number three, David Boon, with acute pad-rash.

So be ready to face the second ball, or fall asleep with the crossword puzzle!

Enjoying the read? Please feel free to share, this is a public post.

Share

Looking back on time, batting number three demands a high level of skill, and not skill confined to one method of operation. This is a position that tests all facets of batsmanship—I hope that’s still a word!

.Notables to succeed at three would be: Brian Lara, Rahul Dravid, Kumar Sangakkara, Jacques Kallis, Martin Crowe—the list could go on. And, what about England’s Jonathan Trott?

Well, Trott has to be England’s most reliable number three this century. Nearly 4000 runs at an average of 44 stands up well in present company!

With respect, though, Trott is hardly a name to be placed in the upper echelons of Test Match batters or even matched with his positional peers above.

However, to his credit, Trott did represent a commendable level of reliability and productivity during his tenure. Could we say the same for today’s incumbents?

England’s reluctance to select a like-for-like is unfathomable.

With some of the deepest pockets in world cricket and a professional player pool three times the size of other countries—India aside—there must be a likely replacement for Ollie Pope. Turning away from the hand that feeds you appears indefensible. This is Bazball, though!

Managers/selectors/coaches—should always want their team's output to exceed the sum of its parts.

Feeling generous? Great. Why not gift a SpeakingNick subscription to someone who might enjoy the content.

Give a gift subscription

Again, Jonny Bairstow of England has received a lot of attention.

Here's my take:

It wasn’t an avalanche, but there were calls for Bairstow to be replaced by Ben Foakes. England resisted the urge to make a mid-series change of direction. Bairstow survived. Why?

Bairstow’s precarious position persists due to an indifferent return from injury, which has seen his glovework suffer immeasurably; a series of dropped catches, missed stumpings, and general untidiness have helped expose England’s below-average out-cricket.

His batting—which expedited his return to the team—has also been patchy. There is very little to show after an excellent 78 on the first day of the series. Bairstow finds himself batting at seven and at the mercy of a shaky tail. He is also caught between three or four different stools.

Bairstow rightly has his backers.

Brendon McCullum will surely be an advocate.

His captain, Ben Stokes, no doubt relishes having the ‘Bairstow character’ to call upon when needed. The wider team would want Bairstow in the fold also; after all, he helped them pocket some nice win bonuses last summer.

Prior to the Headingley Test, ex-Captain Michael Vaughan championed Bairstow’s destructive batting abilities, saying, "I would stick with him because he is so dangerous down the order."

Vaughan’s view changed after Headingley. "His face and demeanour tell me he is shot to pieces!"

Here is the critical juncture: when to intervene, at what point do you extricate the wounded, replacing him with an able body? You might actually be doing the incumbent a favour.

Simply put, for me, Bairstow is a Bazballer; he fits the management’s mould. He’s on the inside.

The unforeseen rise of Bazball as a populist cricket concept is exacting.

Did England’s new coach really script this? I am convinced Brendon ‘Baz’ McCullum might, at first, regret the momentum Bazball garnered.

Its meaning is as vague as its realisation. What ignited the public’s perception of this pivot to a carefree environment—one where losing doesn’t matter and if you do lose, you can say it felt like you won?

Was Test cricket really on its knees? Did the game need a departure from the norms of Test cricket?

Maybe the rapid permeation of Bazball into public consciousness highlights how hungry audiences are for novelty and disruption of the status quo.

All questions that must be answered.

For now, it’s on to Old Trafford and an optimistic look toward Bill’s mother’s.

As always, thank you for being here.

After the discombobulation of Lord’s, it reads a decidedly improbable byline, especially given his Ashes record, which is modest at best.

You know what, though? Chris Woakes is a bloody good lad—he’s hard to loathe, just like Alex Carey used to be!

Stuart Broad will have a lot to answer for.

Unlike 2019. This Headingley Test dawned amidst a cacophony of hysteria and hypocrisy—I’m not sure which was more nauseating.

No doubt the 'normal folk' out there were thankful for the claustrophobic back-to-back scheduling and a break from Piers Morgan and the like. The ‘class war’ could be put on ice pending an England victory. Only this would quell the disquiet.

Perversely, unlike Lord's, when this game did end, players and their kin could be seen taking in some Northern sunshine, and lord forbid, sharing the same space—I wonder if ‘Baz’ McCullum was up for a beer this time around and if ‘Ronnie’ McDonald would reciprocate the sentiment—I think not!

The 2023 Ashes are alive and kicking, in the main courtesy of a litany of errors, with both England and Australia working hard to claim ascendency before duly handing their positions back with mistakes.

Upgrade to receive FREE book

England made three changes to their Lord’s team: one forced and two strategic. This amid the contrived imbroglio that followed Australia’s win at the once-dubbed 'home of cricket'.

First, Moeen Ali was recalled to the ‘Bazball’ fold after his ‘borrowed’ spinning pinky recovered from too much work at Edgbaston. Tour golfers invariably travel with two drivers: a gamer and a backup in the event of the gamer breaking down. Fingers are not quite the same!

It’s hard not to sense a level of hierarchical command in this England set-up. Moeen appears to be on the inside, a member of England’s inner circle, a lieutenant of sorts, alongside Jonny Bairstow and Joe Root—you could argue Root was the underboss. Nevertheless, Moeen is definitely seated at the top table. Captain Ben Stokes has his back.

Moeen bowled a decisive spell between tea and stumps on day two (Friday). Removing a confused Marnus Labuschagne and a rattled Steve Smith—both outs courtesy of batter error. Still, Moeen stuck to his task, and the wickets indeed appeared in his column. His bosses should be well pleased with his work.

Share

Chris Woakes looks more like a soldier from the outside looking in, happy to take orders and tow the family line. His game was one of understated consistency, not something you associate with Brendan McCullum’s modus operandi. Six wickets for the match, spread evenly across the two innings and containing worthy scalps.

His day three spell, after some timely Yorkshire rain, opened up Australia’s second innings, allowing the hosts to chase a modest fourth innings total.

And then the decisive sixth wicket partnership with Harry Brook. Woakes joined Brook with 80 runs still required; Mitchell Starc was circling, and England’s tail looked vulnerable.

Woakes (32*) remained after Brook kept things interesting, eventually hitting the winning runs alongside another soldier-in-arms, Mark Wood.

Mark Wood might be more of an enforcer than a soldier. Mercenary is an unjust term; it more accurately refers to his sporadic appearances.

However, Wood was unstoppable.

Finally let loose (how the series needed his injection of valour and skill), the standout difference from what went before was ball speed. Consistently north of 90mph and reaching a high of 96mph, Wood troubled Australia’s top and bottom orders alike.

He managed to pilot both England’s bowling innings, securing seven of England’s 20 wickets. Clearly, there’s a physical presence to his craft; equally important, though, is his skill to present a seam that allows the Duke to swing late in its journey. Usman Khawaja will no doubt lay testament to this.

I am an unabashed Harry Brook fan.

Earlier in the series, we posted a column on both sides respective number 5s—Harry Brook and Travis Head. Both batters are influencing the series. Head enjoyed a timely double, and Brook won England the game.

Recently given the keys to Bradford, Brook learned his cricket in Ilkley and is a true Yorkshire local. With that comes Yorkshire expectations.

Entering the fray at 3–93, Brook joined fellow Yorkshireman Joe Root at a critical stage of the innings. When he was eventually out at 7-230, just 21 were needed, and Brook had crafted 75 from 93 balls with nine perfectly hit boundaries. This is a 24-year-old playing in his 10th Test in the most excruciating circumstances. Amazing skill and aptitude.

Brook now has more than 1000 Test runs and has reached the milestone with fewer balls faced than anyone else. Aye, Lad. On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at.

Upgrade to receive FREE book

There has to be a loser. Looking back, the series score could be 3–0 to either team, indicative of how close it’s been.

Australia persisted. They always do.

Did they miss Nathan Lyon? Maybe, but Todd Murphy will be better for the experience.

Steve Smith will be rueing that his 100th Test might be remembered more for his outfield catching than his batting. Remember, though, he likes batting at Old Trafford.

Alex Carey was obviously affected by the surrounding commentary and the reception he received from the Leeds crowd. He’s a player in form and had no right to look tentative.

I’m not a fan of Sir’s, and even less so now.

Mitch Marsh checked a box that many thought wasn’t possible. Kudos to him and the selectors for having him on hand. His actions will now generate some lively strategic thought from the background staff. Australia is still in control of this Ashes series. Awesome playing the Bison.

Scott Boland will come again when required. There’s a true soldier there.

And Pat Cummins has been outstanding given his lot. I would urge him to head north to the Lake District for a few days. There’s a lovely village called Cartmel; he could do worse than pitch a tent there to regroup.

PS. I had a daily Twitter thread going for the Headingley Test, I’m hoping you can follow from this link. Twitter and Substack are not playing nicely anymore!

Twitter Thread

The three members, whose names represented a breakaway faction of the Old Etonians debating club, have been justifiably relieved of their MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) privileges, presumably until calmer waters are reached. Then all will be forgiven; it was merely a momentary aberration until next time.

Subscribe now

Without going on too much, I enjoyed reading Marina Hyde's column in the Guardian—at last, a comedic perspective.

It took just one sentence to associate the ‘Wagner Group’ with the group of MCC blazers that "took it upon themselves to enforce ‘the spirit of the game’ by abusing the Australian team as they returned to their dressing room through the members’ pavilion shortly after their stumping of Jonny Bairstow on the last day of the Ashes Test at Lord’s."

And then Hyde went on to lament Rishi Sunak’s (PM) insipid interference:

"As someone who has to also lead in a different way, it was just an interesting case study of how you take the same group of people and get so much more out of them."

Likening the PM's predicament to early ‘Bazball’.

"Yes, yes—we get it. Hold your nerve."

Hyde went on, "I think the point was supposed to be that Sunak isn’t merely failing spectacularly on all his own five pledges, and managing the UK further down the road of decline. He’s actually playing some political version of Bazball, and you should, officially, be extremely into it."

I urge you to read the column. Marina Hyde doesn’t miss anyone, including the BBC's Jonathan Agnew, of whom she says, "He’s another heavily oxidised individual."

Brendon McCullum stated at the outset that he will always look to give players ‘one more game’ than they might expect. I believe it is a conciliatory position to take on the undervalued importance of team selection. McCullum’s coaching style is ‘matesy’. He wants to be inclusive; his preference is a happy dressing room. If he has succeeded here—which you would assume he has—then it’s a very different situation from what he started with.

The ‘one more game’ ticket has been afforded to most, but not everyone.

Zak Crawley has benefited from McCullum’s generosity. Alex Lees, not so.

Read more

I get the feeling, though, that some of the behaviour in the Lord’s Pavilion last night might cut deeper than just sports.

I would say there is a minority in that part of the world that might always believe Australians to be inferior. That they are somehow lesser beings due to their past. I sincerely hope not; it would be plain sad if that were the case.

I just felt the need to air that.

Who likes whiteboards over framed pictures? Yes, not me either!

However, I do have a whiteboard on the back wall of my frigid home office. The space is a summer domain; winters in Geelong are spent in the north-facing kitchen, trying to keep warm and tap the keyboard without needing gloves.

I do drift into the office on occasion, though. And it’s here that I’ve been keeping a session-by-session Ashes series score.

The first two Tests have been laden with back-and-forth cricket, with both teams managing to counter-punch just when you think they're out for the count. The cricket has been exhilarating—I just wish I was there rather than here!

For the record, I have Australia leading the session-by-session score currently 19–13 (this Test was 11–6 in Australia’s favour). I must add that this is purely a subjective viewpoint. The argument being, this series is a lot closer than the 2–0 scoreline suggests.

Subscribe now

Like most folk still in Australia and captivated by this Ashes series, my lot was wrapping up tight on the sofa last night, making sure the kettle was full, and trying to endure the ordinary free-to-air coverage—thank the Lord for the in-game commentary courtesy of analysts who, in the main, do not loop everything back to their own endeavours.

As can be the case in this scenario, one wishes to be put out of any misery early; please do not prolong the inevitable. A swift conclusion awaits, and the sanctuary of an electric blanket beckons.

Then you have Ben Stokes to contend with.

Has an English cricketer stood out from his teammates like Stokes is able to do in these situations?

Stokes competitive instincts are almost peerless on the world stage; he displays these overtly and literally wears his heart on his sleeve. The desire to win is suffocating, and Australia felt this. Make no mistake.

This Lord’s crowd was confusing. Instead of revelling in one of ‘the great innings, they chose to swap their oxford-blue shirts for a Crystal Palace jumper, and not just momentarily.

This was Stokes 13th Test hundred, and he carried the weight of his irresponsible colleagues on his broad shoulders as well as putting his adversary to the sword. Miracles come every four years, and for a time, this looked to be the case. Sadly, his innings might lose some of its gloss, as ultimately, it was a loss, and his team now stares down the barrel of a home Ashes series loss.

And then, Jonny Bairstow and a standing-back-stumping!

At first, I felt aggrieved, not because Bairstow was given out, but more because I wasn’t aware of the law. In fact, I had no clue. Lord knows cricket is an eternally confusing game.

On reflection, though, this particular law (20.1.2) reads definitively.

"The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play."

Bairstow took it upon himself, like a Supreme Court judge might, that he alone regarded this case (or over) settled. When, clearly, his opponents and umpires didn’t.

Why Bairstow went walkabout is obvious: he’s wired tight, the over had been demanding, he craved to get on with the game, secretly wishing for Cameron Green to over-pitch—he had a booming cover drive in mind, not ducking and weaving!

Bairstow just went walkabout when he shouldn’t. And Alex Carey merely offered an underarm toss that collided with the stumps.

Hypocrisy abounds on both sides of the fence here.

In fact, nobody can be blamed for anything that hasn’t been done before (including Sandpapergate). Back in the day, it was called ball-tampering (ask Mike Atherton); just this time, it involved underpants and, yes, sandpaper.

The people involved here are hardened professionals who are always looking for an edge. It’s built into most of them. As Pat Cummins rightly pointed out, the victim in this incident (Bairstow), himself a wicket-keeper, did exactly the same thing to David Warner earlier in the game. Just not with the same success.

Share

This day must be remembered for more than trivial squabbling over the self-determined virtues of ‘the spirit of cricket’.

Test matches are the sum of many different parts. Single, isolated incidents rarely determine the outcome of a game played across such a wide window.

I would charge Brendon McCullum with the task of finding those missing 43 runs over the course of five enthralling days. Circumspect analysis would locate them easily (start with the extra’s column), and more, I would suggest.

Finally, circling back to the crowd and the crabby members of the MCC.

Booing is the water of a duck's back, harmless really. One wag starts, and the rest follow; pay your money, and do as you please—to a point!

But—drawing the line—when you have decrepit members trying to do a ‘Nobby Stiles, by sticking out a black brogue in the hope of tripping up one of those cheating Aussies, then you have issues. MCC members are afforded the luxury of sharing immediate space with the players, but this might not remain if they repeat the misgivings of last night.

So, with that said, Once again, we have been treated to a marvellous Test match; the fire is burning bright, and we only have to wait until Thursday to start all over again.

Enjoy the game for what it is, and like me, brush up on the laws that you invoke.

Give a gift subscription

Sounding like this:

"This team (England presumably) have no fears of losing; even if we go down 0–2, there’s a way to win 3–2; that’s how we want to play, without fear, always."

Thank you, Ollie. Keep batting, please!

Subscribe now

"Previously here, we mentioned that England might have more head-scratching to do than their visitors, Australia."

Nothing, not even Ollie Pope, can change my mind.

Mark Wood, the bowler Australia would least like to face at Lord's, is once again not available for selection. Wood is comfortably the quickest bowler on either list when up and running, and a greenish Lord’s wicket would have been all the tonic he needed to crank up the speed dial. Sadly, for England, he will be keeping the bench warm again. Australia will be hiding wry smiles.

Next in the waiting room is the recalled Moeen Ali, who, as expected, is not able to take his place due to a blistered, spinning finger. England made a token backflip by calling Rehan Ahmed into its squad as cover for Ali, and then, as expected, they opted for four quicks and Joe Root as their spinning option.

Ahmed has had a tough summer to date, taking a grand total of six wickets from eight bowling innings. One of the drawbacks of playing with cellar dwellers like Leicestershire is that you rarely get two bowls in the same game. My source at Grace Road speculates that his batting might overtake the bowling down the track—a la Steve Smith—and England can only hope!

Share

Jimmy Anderson remains—he’s been historically proficient at this. The ‘Burnley Lara’ will be wishing for a better return this time around, though—with the ball!

Anderson’s golfing buddy and once villain of the peace, Stuart Broad, will return to one of his favourite stomping grounds. Broad opened up Ireland’s top order a few weeks back, running the ball down the hill from the pavilion end. He will want more of the same—my source says he has ‘circle wicket celebration mapped".

My (or is it our?) source also added: Anderson had a quiet word with ol’ Broady after the dust settled at Edgbaston, reminding him to keep a lid on the celebrations until his ol’ mate had a couple of poles in the bank—time will tell!

And to the new pantomime villain, Olle Robinson, who will take his place despite the comments of forgotten Australian captain Michael Clarke: I only offer these due to Clarke’s inference that Counties have now become Towns. It went something like this:

"He needs to shoosh. If England were fully fit, he wouldn’t get a game. If Jofra Archer and Mark Wood had been playing, he wouldn’t be." (I’m confused, but you get the drift.) And then the killer blow: "I don’t know what town he plays for—he’d be back playing clubbies." So magnanimous of the young Pup.

It should be said that Ollie Robinson will be a handful if this wicket plays how it looks.

And finally, Josh Tongue, the Lord’s specialist.

Clearly, England was setting Mark Wood for Lord’s.

Captain Ben Stokes told the press Tuesday, "We wanted to play Mark Wood; we felt that he could definitely start the game, but after conversations, we felt the extra week would give him the chance to get his loads up and the opportunity to play a full part from Leeds onwards." Ahh, you have to like loads if you’re an Aussie!

Tongue took a well-deserved five-wicket haul on debut at Lord's earlier this month, and England will be hopeful he can have more success against Steve Smith after dismissing him in a ‘town’ match earlier in the season. Smith was playing ‘town cricket’ for Sussex.

Selecting an all-seam attack affords Stokes some wiggle room as he continues to face issues with his left knee; you would think his bowling role will be minimal—or when Usman Khawaja gets to 200 for the game.

Jonny Bairstow—we didn’t even mention him. No spinner means the obvious; standing back, he looks serviceable when taking the ball to his right. Going left is a different story. Australia could have up to six southpaws in their order (work that out if you can?).

He looked too narrow when Broad and co. bowled around the wicket. I would suggest standing half a step wider and giving up the leg side grab. And ask Joe Root to stand half a step closer at first slip. Or, just bite your ego and play Ben Foakes and politely ask Ben Duckett to warm the bench—who opens can be raffled—Stokes would likely be up for it.

Australia, what do they have to worry about?

Not too much. Other than fitting two of these three into a winning team—Scott Boland, Josh Hazlewood, and Mitch Starc—there’s a left-field argument that Starc should play:

If he does, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon will bat 9 and 10, respectively, on past form, which is desirable for Australia. Just saying.

It might not matter—I believe the Test world champions have their hosts covered.

Let the fun begin. As always, thank you for being here, and enjoy watching wherever you are.

"There’s something special about Lord’s."

Yes, most people are aware of this well-worn cliché. But what is it that truly sets Lord's Cricket Ground apart, or is this perception merely a myth?

Regality and grandeur first; its address:

Lord's Cricket Ground, St John's Wood Road, London NW8 8QN—Isn’t that something?

Located close to central London and situated north of the River Thames—of course, very important to many of its jazz-hatters—it offers convenient accessibility via the tube. St John’s Wood station is nothing more than a leisurely amble. Alternatively, you might want to stretch your legs further; if so, other options are Baker Street, Warwick Avenue, and Edgware Road, all within a sedentary 15-minute walk.

And, what about the quintessentially English mode of transportation—the good old London bus? Routes 13 and 113 run adjacent to Lord's on Wellington Road, stopping closest to the North and East Gates, but are within a comfortable walking distance to the fabled Grace Gate. Notice the singular noun here—this place has many peculiarities.

Motor cars are frowned upon, with patrons encouraged to leave their jaguars at their country estates.

Now, the eco-friendly. Bikes are encouraged, but Lords warns peddlers to honour the ‘riding under the influence’ rules.

If pressed, I would say: Just catch the tube and stroll down Baker Street!

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

With the logistics in hand, it is time to delve into the intricate tapestry of a day at Lord's through the eyes of a Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) member—a quirky bunch they are.

This tribe offers up interesting character assessments; as a rule, they are as unique as their eccentric clothing habits. However, they do understand that cricket is not merely a sport but a timeless ritual that demands reverence and indulgence from its onlookers. They are indeed subservient to these rules.

The first stop would be the revered honours boards.

Members are likely to know that no Test cricket has been played here since their last visit, but they will still feel the need to stare awhile at recent inductees as well as reminisce with old favourites. They might even enter into some meaningless conversation with a like-minded toff. "My dear old thing." Waffle, waffle, waffle.

With respect paid, it’s time to get off the mark. The pavilion at Lords is distinctive for its starkness; at ground level, you have an average view of proceedings at best. This does not deter an MCC member, though—oh no, quite the opposite, it allows for a dependency on alcohol to get one through the day's play.

A well-aged single malt (rough start there), a refreshing gin and tonic, maybe a glass of champers, or it might be a pimms—never would it be a pint of beer, though!

Whatever the weapon of choice, it will accompany our warriors through the first hour of play—I almost forgot the newspaper, freshly delivered to their NW8 town residence. Yes, of course, they would settle down with the Times cricket correspondent and their drink and wonder why Mike Atherton is talking to them and not Neville Cardus (two Manchester lads). Oh well, adjust the eye-glasses and push on, my dear old thing.

The second hour leading into lunch is reserved exclusively for the midday nap. Nothing must come between this and that!

If you had to make comparisons with the members of the Melbourne Cricket Club in the Southern Hemisphere, there would be little or no connection.

A Test match day at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) only has time for drinking, not sleeping. Sleeping is reserved for the homeward train journey. We have a reader who regularly ends up in Lilydale at the end of Boxing Day!

Enjoying the read? If you feel like it, I’d love if you’d share this post with your friends! Or, if you received it from a friend, please forward to another.

Share

Even though I poke some fun at Lord’s and its members, it remains undeniable that "The 'home of cricket' is still a home principally for men." The most obvious example is that England Women are yet to play a Test match at Lord's.

It is owned by Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and is the home of Middlesex County Cricket Club, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), the European Cricket Council (ECC), and, until August 2005, the International Cricket Council (ICC).

It remains a stubbornly male-dominated domain.

In contrast to the England women, the England Men have played two Tests and at least one limited-overs international at Lord's every year since 2000, except for the pandemic-affected 2020 summer.

And then there’s the parody of "The Oxford and Cambridge" match—a continuing promotion of elitism in a rapidly changing British society.

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) is a private members club, and they can do as they like, and many members clearly reject the ‘new interference’ from some quarters. I say, though, that you can have your cake and eat it, dear MCC member. Enjoy your day at ‘The Test. Your spouse is likely to welcome you back at the end of the day, and money will roll into your coffers courtesy of exorbitant ticket sales.

"As the game strives to become more inclusive—it clearly must—normal rationale must prevail; if it doesn’t, further harm will be done, which some people might not realise while they are napping after a nifty gin and tonic.

Enjoy tomorrow, you bunch of jazz-hatters.

Give a gift subscription

PS: This was meant to be a review; instead, I got carried away with that Lord’s stuff. A truncated review should be out before the first gin and tonic goes down!

“What a game of cricket.”

You could leave it right there and walk away in consumable reflection: or you might write 800 words, 8,000, or a bloody book if you had the time and inclination.

“What a game of bloody cricket.”

A reader sent a series of WhatsApp message early Wednesday AEST. Checking back, there were three messages:

"This is riveting."

"This is Test cricket, in all its glory," and:

"Please don’t let anyone ever tell you it is dying or is dead. And admonish anyone who suggests four-day Tests are the answer."

I replied to the last message,

"You have Buff Lehmann to thank." Darren Lehmann, when he was coaching Australia, lobbied strongly for four-day Tests.

And, yes, the sender was barracking* for Australia.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

Where to start? I guess the last men standing:

In another Edgbaston Ashes classic, steady-as-you-go Australia sealed a remarkable victory over catch-me-if-you-can England, thanks in the main to a pulsating 55-run partnership piloted by Pat Cummins and ably supported by Nathan Lyon.

Those in attendance were treated to scenes of pure theatre, as has become the norm with Edgbaston Ashes matches; Peter Carey would be challenged to write a more compelling script.

Cummins and Lyon came together at the fall of the eighth wicket—the curse of using an early nightwatchman—with what seemed a mountain to climb given their own first innings contributions and the demise of the last recognised batter, Alex Carey, who fell to an outstanding caught-and-bowled effort by England’s part-time off spinner, Joe Root.

Initially, the 54 runs required were reduced in a hurry, with captain Ben Stokes persisting with Root’s twirlers before being forced to go back to his trump card, Stuart Broad, and the new pantomime villain, Ollie Robinson. Cummins had swung lustily and effectively at Root, forcing Stokes to turn back to his pacers—noticeably, though, not Jimmy Anderson.

Both Broad and Robinson used the short ball excessively, to good effect at times, and then—as is the norm in these situations—too predictably as the partnership grew and the runs required shrank, forcing Stokes to adopt all manner of fields, including a leg side no-man's land position where he himself spilt an extremely difficult overhead chance—one that Stokes is prone to pulling off.

At 7.21pm, after a stop-start day five that was packed with excruciating cricket, Pat Cummins deflected another short ball from Ollie Robinson down to third man. What seemed like an easy double morphed into the match-winning boundary when Harry Brook and Zak Crawley combined, not as required, to deflect the new Dukes across the rope. Victory was secured—Cummins proceeded to hoist Lyon clean off terra firma.

Steady-as-you-go Australia (tortoise) had exacted a two-wicket victory on their ebullient hosts. Fitting in a way that England's chorus leader, Robinson, conceded the winning runs. Cricket karma is not to be messed with!

Australian fans that were present danced euphorically in the aisles while their friendly foes headed for the M6 and beyond.

Pat Cummins was unable to conceal his joy; there’s little doubt this victory meant the world to him on many different levels (which we might get to in a separate post).

Enjoying the read? If you feel like it, I’d love if you’d share this post with your friends! Or, if you received it from a friend, please forward to another.

Share

As mentioned previously, Ollie Robinson had a lot to say during this Test Match, spraying the affable Usman Khawaja in the first innings and then maintaining a hard-line position in a later press conference, where he speculated that Australia’s tail was of the furry nature (rabbits), meaning he saw nine, ten, and jack all as No 11s—he must have permanently erased the inglorious images of his own batting in the last Ashes series.

One of the furry backs, Nathan Lyon, no doubt enjoyed his can of Stella Tuesday evening with Robinson’s words close at hand. In fact, Lyon could make a strong argument for owning the shot-of-the-day with a lofted step-drive over mid-on off Stuart Broad; there was no sweeter strike all day.

As for Khawaja, he would have enjoyed something non-alcoholic, and he just batted England and Robinson into submission.

Pick your targets, Mrs. Robinson—and don’t poke the Bear!

Give a gift subscription

From an impartial viewpoint, it’s evident that England has more head-scratching to do over the next seven days than Australia.

Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne will not double fail again.

Usman Khawaja generally thrives in a series where he starts well—clearly, Root aside, his batting and batting method were the difference between the two teams.

Nathan Lyon will dominate the spinning space in the absence of a worthy adversary. Josh Hazlewood will be better for his overs. Scott Boland accepted a supporting role and a bit of stick with aplomb. Alex Carey lapped Jonny Bairstow in a straight-out matchup.

And captain Pat Cummins was simply outstanding. As was his support staff, headed up by the cenobitic, Andrew McDonald.

Across the aisle, many more issues are present:

Does England persist with Bairstow’s mercurial glovework?

Ben Duckett will be returning to the comforts of Lords; however, his two outs should be causing some concern to him and Marcus Trescothick, England’s batting coach.

Ben Stokes is clearly not fit to bowl.

Moeen Ali seems likely to miss with his injured finger, forcing England to go to the honey jar they initially shunned. Will Jacks looks like a decent replacement.

Jimmy Anderson looked out of sorts, which is indeed the rather large elephant in the room. England clearly needs more ball speed in their attack. Does Anderson and Robinson fit in the same XI?

Brendon McCullum, Paul Collingwood, and Rob Key have some pondering to do—the good news for England is they are just 0-1 down with 70 minutes to play. Roll on, Lords.

*Barracking: an Australian term for supporting (rooting) for your team.

Pantomime villain Stuart Broad was put in an invidious position just before play started last night (or, yesterday, depending where you’re resting your noggin').

Long-time comrade-in-arms Joe Root sat next to Broad—as he does in most dressing rooms around the world—and offered some words that will ensure Root, Broad, and their team are forever remembered in Ashes lore.

“I fancy a reverse-scoop for six first ball.” So said Root, England’s solo centurion from the first innings.

One must remember that Root has yet to get off the mark at this point. And his understudy, Ollie Pope, is at a similar juncture; arguably England’s most important partnership stands at one run. that, courtesy of an extra.

18 or so hours earlier, Root was in all-out survival mode; batting became alarmingly problematic, so much so that he played the majority of his balls advancing down the once-dry pitch—which had become a burgeoning green-eyed monster.*

Root resembled a stunned boxer propping himself on the ropes with his opponent (Pat Cummins) circling with mortal intent. He hoped for the bell to sound and the sanctuary of a wooden stool, or, in this case, a dressing room sofa. (What an addition!) Umpire Marais Erasmus intervened, summoning the ground staff to cover up—something Root was trying to do earlier.

Fast forwards 18 hours, and Cummins was still circling, England teetered on the brink at 2–28, both not out batters were yet to score, and the Aussies were chock full of their breakfast Weet-Bix. Little did they know what Root had in mind. The rest is folklore.

Has one dot ball ever caused as much commotion as this?

With no third man positioned—was this a GO signal? Who cares? Australia started day four like they might wish they started day one: a strong slip cordon and infielders looking to trap Root on strike—at least for these three balls, anyway!

The ball was as metronomic as Cummins normally is: delivered mid crease, the angle favouring in towards the stumps, and a length that might challenge the bails. What you might expect? Cue Joe Root knew this: the only ball that could scupper his audacious plan was the ball that accounted for Pope later. Yorker.

Input: Will Cummins bowl a yorker first ball? Output: Highly unlikely, it’s green light Joe.

Root is right to calculate a mid-speed loosener from Pat Cummins, a ball likely intended for the safety of Alex Carey’s gloves, with no offense intended to anyone in particular; after all, most of the crowd is still locating their seats while balancing a pitcher of ale. "Quick Joe, do it; nobody’s watching!"

The ball itself is an anticlimax.

Root backed off the reverse-scoop early, making no contact; the trajectory was fourth or fifth stump line, and the length allowed the Duke ball safe passage through to Carey. No damage done, but plenty delivered—passive-aggressive on steroids.

England’s premier batter, Joe Root stood and smiled like a 17-year-old smartass. There was no showboating here, though. No way. By the end of the next over—bowled by Scott Boland—Root had played the reverse-scoop twice more for a maximum and a four. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Pat.

I sat in disbelief, like everyone else.

And then, thankfully, it took only one shot to bring me out of that stupor. It just needed a rewind to the second ball of the 11th over. Boland to Root:

A stock Boland delivery of probing length and meticulous line was met with a soft shoe shuffle that placed Root outside off stump and on top of the bounce. He might have punched to, or through, mid off, instead, Root let the ball come under his eyes and trapped a perfect clip wide of mid on.

It was aesthetically wondrous. I just wish I could have asked which shots had given him the most satisfaction during his curtailed stay—there’s a lot to be said for enjoying your own batting.

I was hoping to ask a favour. Twitter and Substack are having a beef; writers, like me, who use Substack are getting buried or hidden from people's timelines (even followers), making it difficult to get your writing out to prospective readers. Please consider sharing this post and future posts across your own platforms. Thank you, Nick

Share

Root was eventually dismissed for 46, with Nathan Lyon inducing a cow-corner mow that he will soon forget. Spin bowling to Root is like bangers (sausages) are to England’s batting coach, Marcus Trescothick: generally no problem with potatoes. It was merely an aberration; the earlier passages of play must have taken effect!

Circumspection infiltrated England’s later batting, which was a timely intermission. To his credit, Ben Stokes led this charge and prospered somewhat.

When Jimmy Anderson edged the ever-persistent Cummins behind, England found themselves with a lead of 281. Australia have it all to do.

Normal service resumes thereafter, with Usman Khawaja continuing on and David Warner finding his horizontal bat shots again. The pair took the visitors to 61 before Ollie Robinson scrambled a seam and feathered Warner’s edge. It seemed an unlikely breakthrough.

Thankfully, Marnus Labuschagne avoided the dreaded pair and proceeded to move his score briskly with three boundaries, but then, as he did in the first innings, the marauding Stuart Broad struck twice, removing Labuschagne and Steve Smith.

At stumps, Australia had stuttered to 3–107.

Australia has a lot to do from their position; Travis Head, Cameron Green, and Alex Carey would do well to have a dressing room pow-wow of their own and come up with some like-minded plans to chase down this total. 1–0 is a whole lot better than 0–1, and you can be sure there will be no 0–0.

Monday, though, belonged to Joe Root.

As always, thanks for being here.

Notes: *credit goes to Peter Lalor

It would be great to hear how you see this playing out. Please leave a comment.

Leave a comment

As it stands, with a combined 18 wickets in hand and a difference of 35 runs, realistically, the game has come down to a one-bullet-each shootout—which team can hold their nerve the longest?

Unfortunately for the bleary-eyed Australian supporters, and the good folk of the West Midlands, Birmingham's rain brought a premature end to an expectant Sunday.

When England batted a second time after mopping up Australia’s tail effectively, there was no booming cover drive to start proceedings off this time, just challenging overhead conditions to assist Australia’s capable seam attack. For just a short time, thankfully, Bazball was noticeably absent.

Both openers—Zac Crawley and Ben Duckett— fell foul of those conditions, and it’s fair to suggest there would have been further damage if the umpires hadn’t called a halt when they did. It was indeed a fascinating passage of Test cricket, given what had gone before.

Both dismissals were taken behind the wicket: first, Cameron Green—fast becoming a world leader in the gully/wide slip position—held a low, sharp catch to his left, accounting for Duckett. A few balls later, Crawley feathered a Scott Boland leave-ball behind. Alex Carey made no mistake.

Joe Root and Ollie Pope faced a further ten balls between them, with neither getting off the mark. Boland troubled Root’s front pad, and Pat Cummins passed Root’s outside edge, which brought Steve Smith into the game—he asked for, and botched another review.

Without notice, Root looked like he’d been taking batting advice from David Warner.

England—although, they wouldn’t admit—couldn’t get off the ground quick enough.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

Returning to the first sentence: “This first Ashes Test match is tantalisingly poised with two days remaining—no question..”

Writing the word "Test match" does feel a little odd given England’s comments at the end of Day 2.

According to Paul Collingwood, England’s assistant coach, if England were to stop "bazballing" right now, this would almost certainly signal the end of Test cricket as we know it—or as he sees it.

Ponder that for a second, or two.

And Collingwood went one step further, suggesting England’s daring catch-me-if-you-can approach is more important than results. Remember, this was right after Australia had laboured through a ‘traditional’ Test batting day.

Quoting Coach Collingwood: "Our vision as a Test team is far greater than results."

And, reflecting on his team's manic first innings, he said, "If we don’t do that (play like that), then Test cricket might not survive."

"Oh, Colly, I presume you were taken out of context here."

So—a question if I were at the presser—why the declaration Friday evening with Joe Root—yes, Joe Root—unbeaten on 118? Ollie Robinson looking a decent partner, and potentially another 100 runs to be gathered Saturday morning—so putting Australia effectively out of the game, on a wicket that will continue to wear?"

I’m unsure of what his answer might be. Maybe as incoherent as he was on a foggy evening in Colchester after three days of rain—a while back!

On the notion that "Test cricket might not survive." I’ll say this to you:

OK, it's best we just do away with WG Grace then, the founding father of modern-day cricket and much-loved son of Ashes historians. Send him to the gallows; he should never have given himself not-out anyway! It just wasn't cricket.

Don Bradman, well, he might be statistically untouchable, but hey, his strike rate (SR) was crap, too low, and he didn’t bring people through the gates like we do (England)—Collingwood’s team.

Ian Botham and Shane Warne: and what did they do for Test cricket?

Well, Paul, in Botham’s case, amongst other stuff, he just single-handedly won an Ashes series with both bat and ball. And, Warne, well, let’s be honest, he just dined out on that ‘one ball’ he flicked out perfectly and caught Mike Gatting napping—which is easily done after lunch. (Yes, it was pre-lunch).

How about Andrew ‘Freddy’ Flintoff and Ricky Ponting? There's not much going on there either?

No, just a big lad from Preston who sent a few down and then bopped a few out of the park—picked up a team and carried them on his back. Ponting? Well, he never got over being run out by a substitute fielder; he just whinged his way through a career.

Oh, Jack Hobbs, you won’t like him either. Do you know what he did? Everything you don’t like: Hobbs amassed a staggering number of runs in Ashes Tests, all with impeccable technique and solid DEFENSE. Line through Hobbs, please.

Jim Laker, an off spinner, like Moeen Ali—nice job bringing him back to Test cricket—I mean, 1956 is before both of us were born, but forever in the annals of Ashes Tests—as long as they last— will be Laker’s incredible 19 wickets at Old Trafford. In fact, you might like Laker; he also bowled with shark-net fields.

Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson—what did they do? Ask our old mate, ‘Bumble Lloyd’—not so much of the ‘old’ you lads. "Of course, Bumble." Fast, mean, and nasty on the field—and off it most of the time.

"Hey Doc, take away the bloody pain, will ya, and leave the swelling; there’s a good lad!" Bumble offered.

I hope we’re getting to the point and I’m not being too dramatic!

Test match cricket is not ending anytime soon; on the contrary, it will continue to lay a platform that allows cricketers from all around the world to be immortalised forever more. No amount of franchise cricket will erode the history that goes before any cricketer who pulls on an English or Australian shirt—in this instance.

I’m sure my ex-teammate, Paul Collingwood, knows this, and I hope he was poking some Mackem mirth at the assembled press. I hope, for Shotley Bridge’s sake.

In my opinion, Joe Root, is the most rounded batter across the two teams—granted, Steve Smith has plenty to say in this conversation. And it’s just my opinion, whatever that’s worth. To even things up, if I had to bet the ‘last supper," it might swing in Smith’s favour.

Anyway, I only say this because Ollie Pope will be at the other end when play resumes later, and my hope for Pope is that he is shielded somewhat from the dependencies that Bazball might place on him. England needs Pope to become the next Root; he could, and my hope is that he is allowed room to do this.

Yes, big shoes to fill. Leave him be Bazball!

Well, David 'Bumble' Lloyd claims it's the case, and if Bumble says so, it must be true. Like the Dons of South Boston—his word, is the word of the Lord! So help me …

I was going to stop here and get serious; but why—what’s another paragraph. So following on this thread:

How now; my mind leaps to a vivid image, deeply embedded in the recesses of this cluttered mind. It was the UK; there was no doubt about it, no question. Can you believe it? A street sign nestled against a charming stone wall, if my recollection is true. The sign is decorated with profanity. Bell End. Yes, you read it correctly. Bell End. The UK has Roads and Streets, as well as Avenues; then there are Ends, an affix that begs creative manipulation. Here, your proof.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

Apologies…

So, England has their team sheet in—those pesky bits of paper that have to be signed and grow wings if the wind gets up. Well done, England, I say. No Bluff. Remember the "Bazball" definition? — "It’s when two New Zealanders get together and have a crack at running English cricket, with a dude who could be mistaken for a Kiwi (Rob Key)."

So in true "All Black" fashion, the "Bazball" crew has declared their hand early; we know their team! (Remember when Australia used to do this?)

There was a modicum of bluff in Stuart Broad "retaining his spot after the Lords Test"—he was always playing, so not perfect disclosure scoring there, but the rest, well granted, no bluff: Jimmy Anderson, similar to Kenny Rogers, will keep on keeping on. There’s no letup in "Burnley Lara." And Ollie Robinson, well, he’s pretty solid when he has his feet on home soil.

It also should be said that Moeen Ali will lengthen the sometimes vulnerable lower order of the hosts; however, with this, they trade away Jack Leach’s growing dependability with ball-in-hand (did I just write that?)

So, on to Australia.

My view is that they have been closet masters of the colluding bluff by presenting multiple permutations, luring in the curious and anyone with an opinion, thus creating intrigue amongst the opposition and punditry. And then, before you can say Bell End, they roll out the blindingly obvious and messers. Bailey, Dodemaide, and McDonald sit smugly, arms folded.

I might be wrong (yes, it's happened more than once), but on this occasion I see little reason to be concerned about selection; any bowling combination Australia chooses is more than capable of taking the required 20 wickets.

If we really want to debate, it has to be two from three: Scott Boland, Mitchell Starc, and Josh Hazlewood. A primary requirement must be the capacity to bowl north of 30 overs without interruption—that’s injury-related. This has Boland and Starc in front, and Hazlewood primed for a Lord's inclusion.

We know the pitch is dry; dead grass is hiding a crusty scalp, and with warmish weather predicted, it should spin and reverse. Starc has to play for both reasons (reverse and creating rough for Nathan Lyon).

Call me simplistic. No problem. And here’s a stat I found; you’ll recall, "Yes, you can make numbers work for you any way you want."

Starc boasts one of the best strike rates (49.9) in world cricket, ahead of other modern-day greats like Michael Holding (50.9), Mitchell Johnson (51.1), and Glenn McGrath (51.9). Just saying.

Australia to win the toss and bat. Then it's over to Broad and Davey Warner for the first act. Anderson and Usman Khawaja can spar along, trying not to get in the way. It should be compelling viewing.

Regular readers might suspect I’ve been drinking while filing this interlude. I can report that is not the case; more, I feel a little twitchy and really lament the fact I am not in Southie to witness the unveiling of the "Bell End."

Bumble better be on the money, or best we "start the car."

Anyway, enjoy the cricket, everyone.

If truth be known, I've yet to come across a “Cherrington” in my years of wandering. For the Googlers amongst you, it seems Brook’s middle name comes courtesy of his mother. Enough said.

Despite standing on opposite sides of the bat, Head and Brook share many batting traits, which we get to shortly—this seems remarkable considering the contrasting paths they took during their formative cricket years.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

Head, raised in Adelaide's northern suburbs, was a constant companion to the Craigmore Cricket Club. Father Simon affirmed, "His son always had an insatiable appetite for cricket." Mr. Head cited Ricky Ponting as an early influencer.

Whereas Brook grew up in Burley, north-west of Leeds, Yorkshire. Unbeknownst to your scribe, Brook attributes a large chunk of his early development to the coach of Sedbergh School, Martin Speight, a teammate of mine at Durham. It always seemed like the paintbrush would occupy Speight post-cricket, not coaching.

Still, both were on their way, albeit in very different environs.

Head honed his technique on true, firm, fast pitches; where as Brook battled with slow, low, uninviting puddings in the Cumbrian countryside. As is so often the case, though, both players shared an innate love and attachment to the game. That bond with the game remains visible to this day.

I see a seismic shift in how today’s batting orders are built and used. Historically, their position in the order (number 5) has been dismissed as a soft spot. The older brigade sees the openers and number 3 as key positions. "See off the new ball and cash in later." Even number 4 was frowned upon—a spot for the flashy, mercurial type.

Today’s coaches give equal weight to the new ball and a ball 30 overs old; in some cases, the early overs are simply a prelude to the main course with the prevalence of increased ball care and reverse swing. I’ve always regarded 5 as a pivotal position due mainly to its connecting the top order with the bottom. Steve Waugh made a pretty good fist of it—Waugh's ability to anchor innings, form partnerships, and provide stability in the middle and late order was critical to Australia's success over his career.

Both Head and Brook have the position in the order locked away, which one comes out on top in the head-to-head* matchup will go a long way towards deciding the series. *pardon the pun.

Enjoying the read? If you feel like it, I’d love if you’d share this post with your friends! Or, if you received it from a friend, please forward to another.

Share

Bylines and subplots have historically littered Ashes landscapes.

Currently, we see Stuart Broad and David Warner trading punches—my hope is Australia wins the toss and bats later today, allowing them to get to it.

2005 saw ‘Freddy’ Flintoff duel with Adam Gilchrist. Flintoff initiated the round-the-wicket strategy against southpaws, with Gilchrist unable to answer.

Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen—what a contest, the old bull and the young version, and while that was going on, Warne was also busy tormenting Ian Bell.

Lords, 2019, saw Jofra Archer bowling thunderbolts at Steve Smith, eventually sending him to the canvas—which ironically kick-started Marnus Labuschagne’s career.

And then Glenn McGrath continually luring Mike Atherton across his crease, and of course—sorry, Goochie—Graham Gooch trying to hide his front pad from Terry Alderman.

And I’m now offering up two new enforcers: Travis Head and Harry Brook. Not in direct competition, but it will still be compelling viewing all the same.

At 29, Travis Head stands significantly ahead in both age and experience compared to his counterpart. Later today, Head will have played 29 more Tests than Brook—37 to eight. Head has six Test centuries, and Brook has four—an excellent return in just eight Tests. (So, Brook and Speight have four combined!)

Talk to any Australian supporter, and there is little doubt they will tell you Head has been a slow burn—he was inexplicably omitted only four Tests ago. I say inexplicably, but in context, it was not a shocking decision—Head still had several holes in his armour.

Conversely, the 24-year-old Harry Brook has emerged as a rising star under the auspices of England's new regime, spearheaded by the influence of 'Bazball.' To his advantage, he’s only known one way to play Test cricket, a method that appears to be in perfect tune with his own song sheet.

Neither player allows bowlers to lay siege, instead adopting an instinctive offensive bent and storming the castle with only minimal cause for concern. Both know that success is not guaranteed. A translucent light beckons that only the brave can see; both Head and Brook see this. They play against the odds. They will play the odds. Both teams need this from their centremen.

At 5, Head follows Australia’s engine room—Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne—and precedes a potential soft spot in Australia’s order. Whereas Brook is cushioned by the reliable experience of Joe Root, Ben Stokes, and Jonny Bairstow. The potential for game-changing partnerships presents itself everywhere when you combine those names.

Both Head and Brook craft partnerships easily; in fact, they thrive in them. And, more importantly, both have the capability to increase the pace of the innings from any start point—the entry point.

Already a subscriber, and you’re feeling in a giving mood? Why not gift a subscription; that would be a kind thing to do!

Give a gift subscription

Australian coach Andrew McDonald has said of Head: "The beauty with Travis Head is that he plays the same way whether we’re 3–30 or 3–200." He added, "It’s an absolute luxury having your number five play this way." “And a method we encourage.”

Clear and undeniable evidence of this was recently showcased in the World Test Championship final, where Head made an undeniable 163 from only 174 balls. Head’s entry point was 3–76, and his exit was 4–361. The partnership with Steve Smith yielded 285 runs in 70 overs, effectively taking the game away from India.

Thankfully for Ireland, Brook barely made it to the crease in their recent Test match. His previous Test was in New Zealand, where he made a first-innings century—186 from 176 balls. Brook’s entry point was 3–21, and his exit 4–323. Brook’s partnership with fellow Yorkshireman Joe Root realised 302 in just 60 overs.

"Yes, you can make numbers work for you any way you want," as the saying goes. And cricket stats can be manipulated and cherry-picked to support any number of narratives or arguments. However, these two performances alone by Head and Brook demonstrate the immediate influence that such players can have on the outcome of a Test.

Both possess the ability to change the course of a game in a session.

The men from Adelaide and Burley seem set to shine in this much-anticipated Ashes series.

SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.

Subscribe now

The Ashes, one of sport’s oldest rivalries, has returned. And the 2023 iteration shapes as the most eagerly anticipated series since England's resurrection summer of 2005. Can England continue in similar vain, taking all before them with their revolutionary brand of cricket, or will Australia unlock the secrets to "Bazball"? Moeen Ali is coaxed out of Test retirement to replace the likeable Jack Leach, and Australia have their own wildcard to play in Scotty Boland. Where else would you rather be? World cricket can take a breather and enjoy the purity of its five-day format.

I think that was a pretty steady intro. Albeit a tad serious!

Anyways, before we go on, just think while you’re here:

If 2005 went as predicted—an Australian victory—the wider cricketing public wouldn’t have had to suffer Michael ‘Virgil’ Vaughan for as long as we have. A Lancastrian could never forgive a fellow red-roser for crossing to the other side! Born: Eccles. Played for Yorkshire. That being said, full credit must go to Captain Vaughan for his no small part in that heroic series.

The hosts—how empirically formal—England have been on an absolute tear the past 12 months, winning 11 of their last 13 Tests. Coach Brendon McCullum and captain Ben Stokes sweeping all comers aside with a fair dash of nonchalance, and you guessed right, it’s all down to a phenomenon called "Bazball"—whatever this is? We will find out soon.

Before I get to an explanation, I think it’s pertinent to welcome the visitors, Australia, arriving hot off a resounding World Test Championship (WTC) victory over the eternal bridesmaid, India. Australia dominated from the toss to the last wicket being taken. It was an ominous performance from the World champs.

Interesting note: Travis Head—he made a peerless first innings 163—became the first Australian to make a century at The Oval—against India (one for the trivia tests).

Back to "Bazball".

Various definitions are available when searching the "noun" "Bazball and its variants: Bazballing, Bazballer, Bazballed. My preference will always be:

"Bazball is when two New Zealanders get together and have a crack at running English cricket, with a dude who could be mistaken for a Kiwi (Rob Key)."

Hilarious? I thought so.

It goes without saying that England will be bazballing for sure, falling in behind their #1 bazballer, Ben Stokes, hoping they bazball Australia, who end up going home bazballed. It really is that simple!

Or is it? Let us stay with "Bazball’ a while longer. Going back to its architects, McCullum and Stokes, two Kiwis, how would they explain using their native tongue?

"Bloody Bazball’s a rippa bro, cos it’s simple, just absolutely munt the oppo, chunder all over ‘em. It's a calm before a storm thingy, just like being a baby cuz again, bro, play like a billy kid. No time served if yew stuff up. It’s mint."

Thank you, Coach, and well said, Skipper!

Yes, we said it earlier, joking aside.

This series looks like a heavyweight contest of years gone by. One to compare with "The Fight of the Century"—Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier (March 8, 1971) at Madison Square Garden, New York City, United States. Frazier winning on points. Who you might cast as Ali seems unclear? I guess it would be England, with Australia left to do the brawling.

Sorry, back to our two combatants and switching the dial to Australia.

Captain Pat Cummins leads a traditional, well-drilled Test match unit, and they are meticulously prepared by a young and talented coaching group headed by Andrew McDonald.

Share

There appears to be little deviation from Australia’s tried-and-tested formula of scoring big first-innings runs and then building pressure with sustained periods of controlled bowling. They boast the best balanced bowling attack in world cricket—there’s one of those promised unfounded assertions!

Matching England’s revised batting strategy with Australia’s experienced and well-oiled bowling methods will undoubtedly provide the most entertaining watching of the series. Australia's exceptional out-cricket is a frequently overlooked aspect of their arsenal—they seldom miss a chance, and Alex Carey appears to be the better of the four (not a typo) keepers.

On the flip side, certain matchups (Stuart Broad vs. David Warner) and (Jimmy Anderson vs. Steve Smith) should also produce compelling entertainment; however, I do believe the key to either team’s success will lie in the Australia bowling vs. England batting matchup.

In the recently completed WTC cycle (two years), Australia’s bowling attack has issued combined suppression orders against the majority of opponents. These are the four pacers numbers: Boland 33 wkts at 14.57 (consistent with his career record!), Cummins 57 wkts at 22.15, Mitchell Starc 53 wkts at 28.49, and Josh Hazlewood 10 wkts at 29.70.

Nathan Lyon is as reliable as the U.S. Presidential seal—make of that what you will—gathering wickets on all types of surfaces and is rarely subjected to runs-per-over (RPO) pressure. This also looms as an intriguing matchup—Englands middle order, Harry Brook, Jonny Bairstow, Stokes, and Ali—will all look to wrest the early initiative from Lyon. Watch this space.

It’s been said before, and it rings true: "good teams think on their feet." Whoever’s able to do this best and intuitively is likely to win the big moments (at last, a cliche!) and eventually the contest.

My feeling is that England will live and die by the same sword they’ve been wielding for the last 12 odd months.

Jack Leach: "Honestly, I am gutted he can’t be out there wheeling away, accepting of an inevitable mauling, and smiling like a Somerset cat through it all. Absolutely gutted for the green-fingered twirler. I have to say, I’ve been dithering for what seems like an eternity with an article on Leach. It has changed direction more times than a faulty GPS. Taking the piss, not taking the piss. Relentless mocking, then unbridled adulation. Truth be told, I think Leach should be hosting a BBC gardening show; he’s made for it! Mind you, to counter that, green fingers came out with the quote of the year prior to the Ireland Test at Lords: "I now believe I belong in the team." You see, Jack Leach is an impossible read.

Alas, we will all be robbed of his presence—I hear the collective sighs from the Aussie side of the fence.

Give a gift subscription

Oh, last but not least, the commentary—specifically the TV variety—and what to make of this. I can only hope—for Australian viewers—we get some of the UK (Sky Sports) feed as well as the Fox team through Channel 9.

As always, thank you for being here. And there should be a plethora of engaging cricket and commentary to consume over the next six weeks. Here’s hoping!