Cricket things that annoy you

[Juddy88]

I get that the current England players can't just go out and soak up 100+ balls for 20 or 30, I don't think anyone expects that. But surely playing test cricket you have the ability to change gears and control yourself slightly? Why do they feel they NEED to always go at 5+ an over?

Risk reward etc but against world class attacks away from home it's going to backfire more often than not. It's not even on the players, it's the coaching staff that have ingrained this style of play in them so deeply. Duckett, Pope, Root, Stokes, Smith, even Brook have the technical ability to leave or defend until they get their eye in, at the very least 15 balls. There's being proactive and then there's just throwing wickets away.

When they are in control of a match and the only way they can possibly lose is to ignore the state of the game, blindly double down on their philosophy and self-explode - then to not take any accountability or perhaps look at altering things slightly. Well that's more arrogance and head in the sand than anything.

I like the way they play at times, but yesterday wasn't one of those times to play that style. The fact they appear to have no plan B to consolidate a strong position while minimising the risk, is entirely on the coaching staff. Their media are rightfully getting stuck in to them.

 

[Gethelred]

I get that the current England players can't just go out and soak up 100+ balls for 20 or 30, I don't think anyone expects that. But surely playing test cricket you have the ability to change gears and control yourself slightly? Why do they feel they NEED to always go at 5+ an over?

Why?

If the reason is 'because it doesn't work', that's another argument again from 'it's not test cricket'.

Risk reward etc but against world class attacks away from home it's going to backfire more often than not.

Outside of generational sides, barely anyone wins away.

It's not even on the players, it's the coaching staff that have ingrained this style of play in them so deeply. Duckett, Pope, Root, Stokes, Smith, even Brook have the technical ability to leave or defend until they get their eye in, at the very least 15 balls. There's being proactive and then there's just throwing wickets away.

... I mean, sure?

The point of stating that it's poor advice to just slow down, to leave and block and be careful is that it's only bad advice in the context of Bazball. It's not from necessity bad advice; just, it's rather silly advice to just throw out there as though it were that simple. When you face bowling that fast, you are your muscle memory and little else.

When they are in control of a match and the only way they can possibly lose is to ignore the state of the game, blindly double down on their philosophy and self-explode - then to not take any accountability or perhaps look at altering things slightly. Well that's more arrogance and head in the sand than anything.

This is an entirely subjective judgement of the way they choose to approach and adapt to difficulties, not any form of worthwhile criticism. If you wanted to make a worthwhile criticism, it would be as follows: Bazball fails because it does not adequately address the problem of bowling a side out, nor does an emphasis on insulating the changerooms from criticism mean that criticism isn't valid.

We're not going to like what they're doing because they're English.

I like the way they play at times, but yesterday wasn't one of those times to play that style. The fact they appear to have no plan B to consolidate a strong position while minimising the risk, is entirely on the coaching staff. Their media are rightfully getting stuck in to them.

Very, very few sides have a genuine plan B in cricket.

 

[Juddy88]

Why?

If the reason is 'because it doesn't work', that's another argument again from 'it's not test cricket'.

Outside of generational sides, barely anyone wins away.

... I mean, sure?

The point of stating that it's poor advice to just slow down, to leave and block and be careful is that it's only bad advice in the context of Bazball. It's not from necessity bad advice; just, it's rather silly advice to just throw out there as though it were that simple. When you face bowling that fast, you are your muscle memory and little else.

This is an entirely subjective judgement of the way they choose to approach and adapt to difficulties, not any form of worthwhile criticism. If you wanted to make a worthwhile criticism, it would be as follows: Bazball fails because it does not adequately address the problem of bowling a side out, nor does an emphasis on insulating the changerooms from criticism mean that criticism isn't valid.

We're not going to like what they're doing because they're English.

Very, very few sides have a genuine plan B in cricket.

Look, we can go back and forth on philosophy all day, but the reality is clear: England’s approach failed to consolidate a strong position, and that’s on the coaching structure and preparation.

Players aren’t blindly aggressive because of some ‘muscle memory’ limitation—they follow the plan. Critiquing their style isn’t subjective; it’s about observable outcomes: collapses, over-reliance on a few individuals, and lack of contingency.

You can call it ‘Bazball’ or philosophy, but teams need a plan B when momentum shifts, and failing to provide one is objectively a strategic flaw.

 

[sabso]

In the Abu Dhabi t10s there is a team from Pakistan called

Quetta Qavalry

 

[MisterMarcus]

In the Abu Dhabi t10s there is a team from Pakistan called

Quetta Qavalry

Sounds like something the 12th Man would come up with

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The problem starts with the fact England simply aren't good enough to play Test Cricket.

If they played normally with this group of players, they would simply get found out and lose anyway.

The extreme aggressive nature of their play is designed to upset their opponent, in the hope a moment of panic allows them to turn the match. They embrace the chaos in the hope it increases their chance of an upset. They are (by design) a team of Travis Head batsmen - without the composure or ability to 'change gears' (or for that matter the talent)....the thing is, I actually think it worked this Test.

In the first innings, they hit Boland/Duggett out of the attack, Lyon didn't bowl and it was only Starc's supreme effort in the 1st that saw us with a chance. Starc was visibly exhausted in his last spell, his pace dropped below 140 and he looked largely ineffectual. If England could have somehow lasted another half hour, the Aussies may have been broken open.

They then blasted our top-order out with pure pace, and Stokes wrapped up the tail to a series of terrible shots. Aussies were exposed for carrying a few batsmen who really aren't that good anymore. But Bazball is more about their batting...

In the second innings, Boland finally found his rhythm - Pope and Duckett WERE batting more defensively (not BazBall), and when their defences were broken, Boland and Starc ripped through the middle order. It was only once they started swinging with gay abandon again that Australia reverted to the ridiculous "bouncer barrage" - five/six (or even SEVEN!) men on the boundary, long hops to let the batsman dictate. Smith, Atkinson, Carse adding 50-odd runs in a misguided half hour that let England have a 'concerning' lead of 200. It's a tactic I hate, and we seem to do it every time we can.

Despite his final score, Head was conservative early - took 10-15 balls to play himself in - then exploded to 50. Again, once reaching 50 he slowed right down, before launching again. England went to the "20-20" field and bowling around the 5th over, as soon as Head got his first boundary, Stokes went ultra-defensive. I saw it as a lack of faith in his bowlers - but with Joffra bowling 135 and Wood unsighted perhaps it was with due cause.

 

[Gethelred]

The problem starts with the fact England simply aren't good enough to play Test Cricket.

If they played normally with this group of players, they would simply get found out and lose anyway.

The extreme aggressive nature of their play is designed to upset their opponent, in the hope a moment of panic allows them to turn the match. They embrace the chaos in the hope it increases their chance of an upset. They are (by design) a team of Travis Head batsmen - without the composure or ability to 'change gears' (or for that matter the talent)....the thing is, I actually think it worked this Test.

In the first innings, they hit Boland/Duggett out of the attack, Lyon didn't bowl and it was only Starc's supreme effort in the 1st that saw us with a chance. Starc was visibly exhausted in his last spell, his pace dropped below 140 and he looked largely ineffectual. If England could have somehow lasted another half hour, the Aussies may have been broken open.

They then blasted our top-order out with pure pace, and Stokes wrapped up the tail to a series of terrible shots. Aussies were exposed for carrying a few batsmen who really aren't that good anymore. But Bazball is more about their batting...

In the second innings, Boland finally found his rhythm - Pope and Duckett WERE batting more defensively (not BazBall), and when their defences were broken, Boland and Starc ripped through the middle order. It was only once they started swinging with gay abandon again that Australia reverted to the ridiculous "bouncer barrage" - five/six (or even SEVEN!) men on the boundary, long hops to let the batsman dictate. Smith, Atkinson, Carse adding 50-odd runs in a misguided half hour that let England have a 'concerning' lead of 200. It's a tactic I hate, and we seem to do it every time we can.

Despite his final score, Head was conservative early - took 10-15 balls to play himself in - then exploded to 50. Again, once reaching 50 he slowed right down, before launching again. England went to the "20-20" field and bowling around the 5th over, as soon as Head got his first boundary, Stokes went ultra-defensive. I saw it as a lack of faith in his bowlers - but with Joffra bowling 135 and Wood unsighted perhaps it was with due cause.

All of this.

Quite honestly, I blame Stokes and McCullum for the loss through their terrible bowling plans to both Weatherald and Head early - they were consistently about a foot too short, allowing both players to leave the ball rather than sparring at it - and the genuinely awful fields they set to Head after he passed 30.

Full ODI/T20 fields, but without the data to support why those fields look the way they do. Players behind square on both sides of the pitch with Head scoring through cover and midwicket, and dropping it short when there's just so, so much space square of the wicket that he kept finding pockets of space.

 

[Juddy88]

The problem starts with the fact England simply aren't good enough to play Test Cricket.

If they played normally with this group of players, they would simply get found out and lose anyway.

The extreme aggressive nature of their play is designed to upset their opponent, in the hope a moment of panic allows them to turn the match. They embrace the chaos in the hope it increases their chance of an upset. They are (by design) a team of Travis Head batsmen - without the composure or ability to 'change gears' (or for that matter the talent)....the thing is, I actually think it worked this Test.

In the first innings, they hit Boland/Duggett out of the attack, Lyon didn't bowl and it was only Starc's supreme effort in the 1st that saw us with a chance. Starc was visibly exhausted in his last spell, his pace dropped below 140 and he looked largely ineffectual. If England could have somehow lasted another half hour, the Aussies may have been broken open.

They then blasted our top-order out with pure pace, and Stokes wrapped up the tail to a series of terrible shots. Aussies were exposed for carrying a few batsmen who really aren't that good anymore. But Bazball is more about their batting...

In the second innings, Boland finally found his rhythm - Pope and Duckett WERE batting more defensively (not BazBall), and when their defences were broken, Boland and Starc ripped through the middle order. It was only once they started swinging with gay abandon again that Australia reverted to the ridiculous "bouncer barrage" - five/six (or even SEVEN!) men on the boundary, long hops to let the batsman dictate. Smith, Atkinson, Carse adding 50-odd runs in a misguided half hour that let England have a 'concerning' lead of 200. It's a tactic I hate, and we seem to do it every time we can.

Despite his final score, Head was conservative early - took 10-15 balls to play himself in - then exploded to 50. Again, once reaching 50 he slowed right down, before launching again. England went to the "20-20" field and bowling around the 5th over, as soon as Head got his first boundary, Stokes went ultra-defensive. I saw it as a lack of faith in his bowlers - but with Joffra bowling 135 and Wood unsighted perhaps it was with due cause.

You’re confusing narrative with analysis. England aren’t a chaos team—they’re an inconsistent but dangerous side using an aggressive philosophy. And nothing in that Test suggests Australia were ‘about to break’—Starc being tired for 3 overs doesn’t rewrite what actually happened.

You're oversimplifying the argument by saying England have little talent. Root is elite. Stokes has elite temperament, though clearly out of form. Brook is clearly talented. Duckett and Pope are technically sound. Anderson/Broad (previously) were world-class servants of traditional Test cricket.

The issue is depth and discipline, especially among the top 3-5.

They do fail too often for any classical strategy to work consistently. So on that you are correct that Bazball is an attempted workaround.

Bazball is NOT “we’re bad, so let’s swing harder. It's more "If we play standard Test cricket, Australia/India will slowly suffocate us. If we change the rules, we give ourselves a chance.”

A few England players (Duckett, Crawley, Brook) are poor at changing tempo.
They struggle to go down through the gears when conditions demand it. Root, Stokes, Pope, and previously Bairstow can change gears. Root especially is not a “Travis Head type” at all. So the comparison works for the spirit, but not the detail.

We are definitely in agreement that if England had played in a "normal", or "traditional" way that they might have been bowled out for ~180 in the first innings. The aggression certainly did manufacture around 70–100 extra runs through momentum and disruption.

Additionally I entirely agree, and you're reinforcing my points. They had to keep Aus out there longer, and at times that clearly required an adjustment, however slight. England had a small window where Starc was tired and the game could’ve swung — but they required discipline, and they didn’t have it.

Bazball works when England combine aggression with intelligence.
This Test showed the aggression but not the intelligence. If they add situational awareness to their attacking style, they become genuinely dangerous.

 

[the_interloper]

All of this.

Quite honestly, I blame Stokes and McCullum for the loss through their terrible bowling plans to both Weatherald and Head early - they were consistently about a foot too short, allowing both players to leave the ball rather than sparring at it - and the genuinely awful fields they set to Head after he passed 30.

Full ODI/T20 fields, but without the data to support why those fields look the way they do. Players behind square on both sides of the pitch with Head scoring through cover and midwicket, and dropping it short when there's just so, so much space square of the wicket that he kept finding pockets of space.

I was watching with my brother and he did point out we batted very well but they didn't bowl well that's for suree, might have been a bit missed with Head's brilliance. Marnus' contribution was important as well, could have been a problem if we started losing wickets up the other end, our tail is kind of long at the moment.

 

[Scotland]

I disagree that England can't play test cricket and can't see off the new ball etc. They can, what they are doing is tactical.

Joe Root has 13,500 runs @ 50, No. 2 all time. He's no mug. Ben Stokes can turn a game in a session with the bat and has a career strike rate of 59. Brook averages 56 in tests striking at 87 and in other FC games averages 37 striking at 67. He's certainly found success being a slogger but it's not like he was trying to score at a run a ball playing county cricket.

Scoring quickly is a tactic, not a strategy. We could open with Travis Head the rest of the series and say 'go big from ball one' and he will probably finish the series with 200 runs total. Ignoring the fact that he started his innings 8 off 16, if what he did was easily repeatable it wouldn't be memorable. Gilly's ton at the WACA was 19 years ago. David Hookes 34 ball 100 was in 1982. People still talk about those innings. Fundamentally cricket isn't a complicated sport. Each team bats and each team bowls and the team with the most runs wins. The only complicating factor of tests over limited overs is that if there isn't a result within 5 days the match is drawn. We've seen teams bat and make ridiculous totals and we've seen teams bat all day to save the game. AB de Villiers scored 33 off 220 against us in Adelaide and he's a better 'bazballer' than any of the England squad.

England batted how they chose to bat on day one in conditions that favoured the bowlers. They scored at 5 and over but lasted 32 overs. We didn't bat well, but they bowled well - to the conditions. Then they came out again and were cruising then collapsed. Scored at 4.7 an over but lasted 34 overs. They didn't bowl as well in the second dig but also their bowlers had no rest and the conditions were starting to turn. If they had any brains they would've batted into day 3 then had prime conditions to score as quickly as they wanted. Instead they set us 205 as the conditions were getting easier. Brisbane will be different again. Fast but a bit less bounce, more humidity and added impact of the pink ball and night sessions. If their bowlers came out under lights with a hooping/seaming pink ball and just bowled short they would get shitcanned and rightly so. Use the conditions to your advantage when you can. But their batsmen don't seem to adjust whether it's Perth or Nagpur.

Two Ashes series in a row they have gifted us a first up win with dumb batting. I'm here for it but it's so so poor.

 

[brutus76]

You can be aggressive and try to score quickly.

Sometimes you need to just hang around and build an innings and take the 1s and 2s and move the ball around, don't be shy to leave a ball, rotate the strike and knuckle down and build a partnership and see off a new or reversing ball.

Very much like Michael Bevan did in the ODI game. Assess the situation. If he came in after a quick couple of wixkets he'd just keep the scoreboard ticking over and run hard between the wickets. Then when risks needed to be taken he'd take them in a calculated manner.

 

[Scotland]

2023:

1st test England scored at 5 an over in the first innings for an eventual first innings lead of 7, then scored at 4 an over in the second innings and lost by two wickets.

2nd test Australia batted first and made 416 at 4.1 an over. England scored slightly quicker at 4.25 but were all out for 325. Australia scored 279 at 2.7 in the second dig. England scored at 4 an over in the fourth innings but were all out for 327 and lost by 43. Stokes batted out of his skin but they still lost.

Scoring quickly was necessary and worked for them in the fourth test but with a rain interrupted test they didn't get a result because they couldn't get 10 wickets in 70 overs of play.

Unless you are scoring at 10-15 an over you cannot expect to be all out twice in 70 overs and win tests.

 

[Juddy88]

2023:

1st test England scored at 5 an over in the first innings for an eventual first innings lead of 7, then scored at 4 an over in the second innings and lost by two wickets.

2nd test Australia batted first and made 416 at 4.1 an over. England scored slightly quicker at 4.25 but were all out for 325. Australia scored 279 at 2.7 in the second dig. England scored at 4 an over in the fourth innings but were all out for 327 and lost by 43. Stokes batted out of his skin but they still lost.

Scoring quickly was necessary and worked for them in the fourth test but with a rain interrupted test they didn't get a result because they couldn't get 10 wickets in 70 overs of play.

Unless you are scoring at 10-15 an over you cannot expect to be all out twice in 70 overs and win tests.

But it's "the way they play" and "the vibe"!

In all seriousness, you are spot on.

 

[Wallaby]

2023:

1st test England scored at 5 an over in the first innings for an eventual first innings lead of 7, then scored at 4 an over in the second innings and lost by two wickets.

2nd test Australia batted first and made 416 at 4.1 an over. England scored slightly quicker at 4.25 but were all out for 325. Australia scored 279 at 2.7 in the second dig. England scored at 4 an over in the fourth innings but were all out for 327 and lost by 43. Stokes batted out of his skin but they still lost.

Scoring quickly was necessary and worked for them in the fourth test but with a rain interrupted test they didn't get a result because they couldn't get 10 wickets in 70 overs of play.

Unless you are scoring at 10-15 an over you cannot expect to be all out twice in 70 overs and win tests.

Rather than stop after 2 tests, let's look at the rest of the series.

3rd test, England scored at 4.5 RPO in the first innings (trailed by 25), and chased down a tough target on the 4th day - 245 at 5 an over.

4th test, they scored 590 at 5.4 an over, and Australia only escaped with a draw because it rained.

5th test, they scored at 283 at over 5 an over, and 395 at 4.8 an over and won the game. It was close - but they won. Maybe Australia should have been a bit more aggressive in the 4th innings.

The aggressive approach by England has been effective - they have been reasonably successful (they are currently the NO 2 ranked side - even after the Perth test).

Travis Head played exactly the way England have tried to play the last few years - probably even more aggressively - he got away with it.

 

[Juddy88]

Rather than stop after 2 tests, let's look at the rest of the series.

3rd test, England scored at 4.5 RPO in the first innings (trailed by 25), and chased down a tough target on the 4th day - 245 at 5 an over.

4th test, they scored 590 at 5.4 an over, and Australia only escaped with a draw because it rained.

5th test, they scored at 283 at over 5 an over, and 395 at 4.8 an over and won the game. It was close - but they won. Maybe Australia should have been a bit more aggressive in the 4th innings.

The aggressive approach by England has been effective - they have been reasonably successful (they are currently the NO 2 ranked side - even after the Perth test).

Travis Head played exactly the way England have tried to play the last few years - probably even more aggressively - he got away with it.

Bazball’s aggression is brilliant to watch when it comes off, but the first Test showed that blindly following it without adapting to the situation can, and will backfire against strong opposition regularly.

Momentum helps, but judgment (knowing when to reign it in versus all out constant attack) is what wins big matches and series - not blind adherence to a strict philosophy at all times.

 

[Pistol Night]

But it's "the way they play" and "the vibe"!

In all seriousness, you are spot on.

We just showed the campaigners how to play Bazball successfully

 

[Scotland]

Rather than stop after 2 tests, let's look at the rest of the series.

Sure, but it was 2-0 by then.

3rd test, England scored at 4.5 RPO in the first innings (trailed by 25), and chased down a tough target on the 4th day - 245 at 5 an over.

4th test, they scored 590 at 5.4 an over, and Australia only escaped with a draw because it rained.

5th test, they scored at 283 at over 5 an over, and 395 at 4.8 an over and won the game. It was close - but they won. Maybe Australia should have been a bit more aggressive in the 4th innings.

The aggressive approach by England has been effective - they have been reasonably successful (they are currently the NO 2 ranked side - even after the Perth test).

England's approach can be effective. No one is saying it can't. All people are saying is that if you have one game plan for all tests in all conditions then it's doomed to fail a good portion of the time. See my comment about Head above. He played an innings for the ages. He's not going to do that every test. There has to be plan B.

England's approach to batting against Scott Boland was to go after him. 0/62 off 10 and he was on average too full. Second dig he adjusted and took 4/33 off 11. Did England adjust to him? Not on all available evidence. Three wickets from batsmen trying to drive on the up. The line and length he was bowling they could have seen him off by leaving the ball and making him target the stumps/bowl a fuller length. But they didn't. It's the same bowler on basically the same pitch (day one vs two) making a slight adjustment, and the plan didn't work.

Travis Head played exactly the way England have tried to play the last few years - probably even more aggressively - he got away with it.

Except that he didn't. He was 9 off 18 in the first dig and 8 off 16 in the second. He got out to a poor shot in the first, that is poor cricket. He was attacking in the second but wasn't trying to force shots that weren't there until he was well established and scoring freely.

 

[Gough]

The size of Australian grounds isn't Bazball's friend either. What works at Lords which is the size of a postage stamp can be a bit more difficult to replicate at the MCG.

 

[Scotland]

There was a period in the 2000s/2010s when CA kept preparing roads everywhere but ask anyone "What's the WACA/Optus Stadium pitch like?" and the answer has always been that it's fast and bouncy but you get good value for your shots once you are in, then as it dries out it tends to crack up and is a nightmare to bat on because of the uneven bounce. There has always been something in it for everyone except the spinners (Warne SR 77, Lyon 79 at the WACA though the latter has a great record at Optus) if you play properly.

 

[PhatBoy]

You’re confusing narrative with analysis. England aren’t a chaos team—they’re an inconsistent but dangerous side using an aggressive philosophy. And nothing in that Test suggests Australia were ‘about to break’—Starc being tired for 3 overs doesn’t rewrite what actually happened.

You're oversimplifying the argument by saying England have little talent. Root is elite. Stokes has elite temperament, though clearly out of form. Brook is clearly talented. Duckett and Pope are technically sound. Anderson/Broad (previously) were world-class servants of traditional Test cricket.

The issue is depth and discipline, especially among the top 3-5.

They do fail too often for any classical strategy to work consistently. So on that you are correct that Bazball is an attempted workaround.

Bazball is NOT “we’re bad, so let’s swing harder. It's more "If we play standard Test cricket, Australia/India will slowly suffocate us. If we change the rules, we give ourselves a chance.”

A few England players (Duckett, Crawley, Brook) are poor at changing tempo.
They struggle to go down through the gears when conditions demand it. Root, Stokes, Pope, and previously Bairstow can change gears. Root especially is not a “Travis Head type” at all. So the comparison works for the spirit, but not the detail.

We are definitely in agreement that if England had played in a "normal", or "traditional" way that they might have been bowled out for ~180 in the first innings. The aggression certainly did manufacture around 70–100 extra runs through momentum and disruption.

Additionally I entirely agree, and you're reinforcing my points. They had to keep Aus out there longer, and at times that clearly required an adjustment, however slight. England had a small window where Starc was tired and the game could’ve swung — but they required discipline, and they didn’t have it.

Bazball works when England combine aggression with intelligence.
This Test showed the aggression but not the intelligence. If they add situational awareness to their attacking style, they become genuinely dangerous.

This. It’s ‘puncher’s chance’ combined with the fact that the puncher actually has some boxing talent. But like any boxer who fights that way, it leaves itself open to the opponent finding ways through it

The West Indies under Sammy have said that they want to try and back up their fairly good bowling line up by playing aggressively with the bat which is a kind of version of it.

Our problem is the only player we have with a level of pure ability (we DO have some good eye players but beyond that there’s not a lot) who matches anyone from England is Shai Hope and as his record suggests, that ability level has not manifested itself often in test cricket.

So our puncher’s chance is the traditional type. We might land the occasional heavy blow and win a test here or there - our lower order did it against Pakistan where Motie and Warrican slapped us to a defendable score on a shit pitch. Overall it’s not calculated or sustainable. England’s is - relatively speaking, anyway. IF, it’s used to the a modicum of intelligence. In Perth, it wasn’t.

 

[the_interloper]

We just showed the campaigners how to play Bazball successfully

They're actually just copying Gilly really

 

[PhatBoy]

They're actually just copying Gilly really

Who just copied Viv, really.

 

[Pistol Night]

Who just copied Viv, really.

WGGraceBall incoming

 

[the_interloper]

WGGraceBall incoming

W.G. Grace = Robert Johnson!

 

[PhatBoy]

Can’t be bothered going back further because ball-by-ball records were more scant but in Richards’ last 10 centuries, only one came at a strike rate below 75, three of them came at a strike rate above 95 and 1 came at a strike rate approaching 200.

Not really sure anyone recent needs to be laying claim to having invented quick scoring at a high average. That’s without addressing Bradman who didn’t seem to have an issue with doing both.