Banter The No Dazzlering Big Cricket Thread - 2025/26 Ashes Edition

[Doashuey]

Smith's captaincy was really average when Archer went out there.
All on the boundary and no chin music.
Also totally agree NL should be out there, stupid decision not to play the guy.

The reason Smith did that is that the Aussies really didn't want to start their innings under lights- it was the smart move.
Protect the boundaries to limit the scoring rate, slow down the play and try not to get them out and risk losing 1 or 2 top order wickets with a new rock under lights. The runs added are less of an issue for the Aussies than if they lost 1 or 2 wickets last night.

 

[RookiePick]

The reason Smith did that is that the Aussies really didn't want to start their innings under lights- it was the smart move.
Protect the boundaries to limit the scoring rate, slow down the play and try not to get them out and risk losing 1 or 2 top order wickets with a new rock under lights. The runs added are less of an issue for the Aussies than if they lost 1 or 2 wickets last night.

When are we going to have to find the extra 50-60 runs? Either under the lights or we have to survive the lights until tomorrow anyway - admittedly if it's tonight we should be facing the old ball, unless England somehow bowl much faster than usual.

If Root and Archer get a bit of luck this morning 350-375 is not out of the question and I expect we are playing for a draw, at best, from that point. Engineering a win would require us to stack up 550-600 by halfway through tomorrow night session and decimate the England top order by close of play. Not impossible but improbable.

 

[Dazzler9]

The reason Smith did that is that the Aussies really didn't want to start their innings under lights- it was the smart move.
Protect the boundaries to limit the scoring rate, slow down the play and try not to get them out and risk losing 1 or 2 top order wickets with a new rock under lights. The runs added are less of an issue for the Aussies than if they lost 1 or 2 wickets last night.

Conceding 60 runs (so far) for the 10th wicket, is at least as bad as losing 1 wicket ourselves.

 

[Tugga27]

When are we going to have to find the extra 50-60 runs? Either under the lights or we have to survive the lights until tomorrow anyway - admittedly if it's tonight we should be facing the old ball, unless England somehow bowl much faster than usual.

If Root and Archer get a bit of luck this morning 350-375 is not out of the question and I expect we are playing for a draw, at best, from that point. Engineering a win would require us to stack up 550-600 by halfway through tomorrow night session and decimate the England top order by close of play. Not impossible but improbable.

Assuming we don't lose any play for bad weather , pretty sure you can take the draw out of the equation.

I think the Poms are slightly ahead at this stage.

If we do lose, which I think is probably, Bailey and Co will be under the heat for dropping Lyon.
If you're going to drop him, at least play Webster who bowls decent offies.

Neser is just another trundler.

 

[Tugga27]

Good to see Konstas getting a few runs.

Does anyone know why Kelly isn't playing for WA?

 

[Farang83150]

The reason Smith did that is that the Aussies really didn't want to start their innings under lights- it was the smart move.
Protect the boundaries to limit the scoring rate, slow down the play and try not to get them out and risk losing 1 or 2 top order wickets with a new rock under lights. The runs added are less of an issue for the Aussies than if they lost 1 or 2 wickets last night.

That's one way of looking at it, don't agree with it at all if it was intentional by Smith.
Would rather go with a NW or have faith in the openers than concede that many (and probably more to come) runs.

 

[TY24]

I missed the last session. Did they go the short ball tactic and that's why the 10th wicket has so far put on 60?

Seemed like they were avoiding taking the final wicket until there wasn't enough time for us to have to bat.

They had the field on the rope, Archer skied it several times but there was never anyone there to catch it.

They were also taking the piss and time wasting as much as possible.

I see what they were trying to do but they got it wrong and gave up way too many runs.

That being said if we faced more than 2 overs last night I reckon Jofra would've had us 2 down minimum.

 

[RookiePick]

Assuming we don't lose any play for bad weather , pretty sure you can take the draw out of the equation.

I think the Poms are slightly ahead at this stage.

If we do lose, which I think is probably, Bailey and Co will be under the heat for dropping Lyon.
If you're going to drop him, at least play Webster who bowls decent offies.

Neser is just another trundler.

Are they still forecasting storms for day 4 and 5?

 

[Doashuey]

Conceding 60 runs (so far) for the 10th wicket, is at least as bad as losing 1 wicket ourselves.

Assuming we could have just flicked a switch and got the 10th wicket for no additoinal runs. I reckon we would take 1 wicket down with the 15 or so overs of a brand new pink Kooka under lights with Archer sending down 150km/h swingin deliveries. There was a high likelihood we could have been 2 or 3 down in 15 overs.
The intent was clearly not to conceed too many runs but the Poms were good enough to get them so it can be debated whether it was the right tactic or not but I have no doubt it was the tactic they were going for- avoid facing a new ball under lights.
I think there is plenty of time in the game to try and manage the conditions like they did. We will see.

 

[Doashuey]

When are we going to have to find the extra 50-60 runs? Either under the lights or we have to survive the lights until tomorrow anyway - admittedly if it's tonight we should be facing the old ball, unless England somehow bowl much faster than usual.

That's the point, facing an old ball under lights didn't present too many issues for England. The Aussies are the most experienced team at D/N Tests in the World- they know the score. Avoid facing the new ball under lights, get in during the day and knock it around, face the softer ball under lights. If things go well and our batting line up is good enough, we bat deep into Day 3 and build a handy lead then get to go at the Poms top order with a new ball during twilight hours. That's the thing with D/N tests, conventional declarations and game management go out the window.

There is loads of time in this game, we dont need 600 first innnings runs to get a win.

 

[RookiePick]

Absolute screamer by Banners!

Wow!

 

[Doashuey]

That's one way of looking at it, don't agree with it at all if it was intentional by Smith.
Would rather go with a NW or have faith in the openers than concede that many (and probably more to come) runs.

I dont think it is one way of looking at it, I would guarantee that was exactly the strategy.
You coold see Head gesturing to Smith to slow the play down - they did not want to bat last night.

 

[RookiePick]

That's the point, facing an old ball under lights didn't present too many issues for England. The Aussies are the most experienced team at D/N Tests in the World- they know the score. Avoid facing the new ball under lights, get in during the day and knock it around, face the softer ball under lights. If things go well and our batting line up is good enough, we bat deep into Day 3 and build a handy lead then get to go at the Poms top order with a new ball during twilight hours. That's the thing with D/N tests, conventional declarations and game management go out the window.

There is loads of time in this game, we dont need 600 first innnings runs to get a win.

There is an old saying about runs on the board.

Nothing we saw in Perth should make us feel like we have a good team batting performance to roll out on tap.

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

I keep seeing stuff like this on social media, mostly from former English players:



Leaving aside the absurdity of Ricky Ponting wearing the gloves, if former players are going to commentate on their sport would it kill them to do five minutes of research? The former England players (and mouth-breathers like Piers Morgan) keep putting Joe Root on the team on the basis of "well he's a great player" but frankly his Ashes record, by his standards, is pretty ordinary! He averages 41 whereas Steve Smith, whose career is in the exact same era as Root, averages 55. Everyone knows about Root's struggles in Australia but Smith actually has a better batting record in England than Root does! They also keep including Ponting (again, because he was a generational talent) but in the Ashes he actually was not nearly as good as against other sides (average 44 vs nearly 52). It would make much more sense to select Allan Border (average 55.5 in the Ashes, better than his career average) or Steve Waugh (average 58.8, again better than his career average) over Ponting. Certainly over Pietersen, who averaged only 44.

Also, Ben Stokes averages about 35 with the ball and the bat, which is fine, but gets pretty overrated based on that one innings at Edgbaston.