The Ashes 2023: England v Australia, first Test, day five delayed due ...

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Rowan Sweeney from Australia is wondering if Bazball has truly been tested yet?

“I’m wanting to pick up the thread about Bazball, specifically something I feel the media hasn’t really prosecuted too vigorously. Bazball is exciting, yes, and England are winning tests and series, but the strength of opposition in the last 12 months hasn’t been amazing. I guess I’m asking, inspiring method aside, have they beaten anyone with Bazball they’d realistically not have been able to beat playing conventional cricket? Let’s go Australia!”

Let’s unpack them in reverse order:

Ireland were poor so that doesn’t count.

So too a New Zealand side though they did draw their series away.

The 3-0 win in Pakistan was perhaps the most impressive and wouldn’t have happened without the uber aggressive batting on dead tracks.

South Africa couldn’t bat to save themselves but England still lost one match by an innings. If the Proteas bowlers had Smith or Khawaja or Head or Marnus I think they would have won (but perhaps I’m biased.)

The one-off Indian Test win to square the covid-delayed series doesn’t count as an example of Bazball coming good.

New Zealand in England at the start of Bazball were like deers in the headlights. It was as if they couldn’t believe their old skipper was leading a revolution somewhere else.

So, yes? Bazball hasn’t quite been tested? But look, their batting in this game has been extraordinary and Stokes deserves immense praise for the way he’s captained.

Root’s scoops or Cummins’ corker? Why not both, says Lee Henderson from a chilly NSO in NSW Far North Coast, who’s also leaning into the nickname debate.

“If you were on a building site, the likes of which I work on daily I reckon you’d end up being called Dangle; Oi Dangle more mud(brickies mortar) you(English person or words to that effect...). Dangle! Hurry it up. Hey Dangle get us a pie coke willya.”

But enough about me. What’s the weirdest nickname you’ve got? Bonus points if it’s cricket related.

Ashes newbie Alexander Radford writes in:

“Wotcher Dandemonium, thanks for your sterling work” Now that is a nickname!

“This is my first time engaging with The Ashes (and cricket in any form to be honest), following a spur of the moment decision to listen on my drive home on Friday, and it turns out I’m really enjoying it. I am consistently baffled by… well, everything, but have some patient and knowledgeable friends who like explaining things to set me right. They inform me that it’s not usually this exciting! Should I quit while I’m ahead, or is it still worth watching the next Test?”

No, definitely don’t quit. I genuinely believe that this series will be as good as any we’ve had. And if the doomsayers are true, we might never get an epic contest like this again (don’t worry, we will, but some jeopardy helps with the narrative).

Welcome to this strange game, Alex. You don’t have to be nuts to enjoy it, but it helps.

More than just an urn at stake? That’s what Jonny Liew reckons. And, as always, he’s spot on.

2005 anyone? As Dan Green points out, things are getting a little eerie:

“As a fellow Dan G I quite like Dang! as an American exclamatory nickname. Other than that, noting the Edgbaston 2005 fall of wickets vs today’s nail biter:

2005: 47, 48, 82, 107, 134, 136, 137, 175, 220, 279

2023: 61, 78, 89

Here’s the scorecard from that epic.

Stop the count. We have a nickname winner:

“Hello Danza-da-manza, Riley here in British Columbia, Canada. I work as a bartender so I usually finish work late enough to justify staying up until 3am so I can watch the first hour or so of the test before going to sleep. Then I tend to wake up around noon and watch an extended highlights video before heading off to work. But tonight my late night (early morning?) plans have been rained out so to speak. I can’t imagine I’ll be up for first ball. But I wanted to offer you the nifty nickname of Danza-da-manza in honour of the glorious Bazball.”

Love that. Thanks Riley. Hope you manage to catch some of the action live.

On the count of three…

What happened to all the yorkers?

“For me, the ball of the match so far was the absolute jaffa sent down by Pat Cummins to dismiss Ollie Pope yesterday and it got me thinking.” It was a cracker, that’s for sure Benjamin Hendy. What’s on your mind…

“Clearly pulling off a ball like that is a bloody difficult thing to do, but the yorker seems to be attempted much more rarely than it used to be. Obviously it was never happening every other ball or anything, and also I should acknowledge that I rarely get to watch teams outside of England and their opponents (world cups and some domestic cricket aside), but that ball from Cummins was unplayable and it seems like they’re almost never attempted anymore. Is there anything to this? Or am I just not paying enough attention?”

It’s such a difficult ball to bowl as the margin for error is so small. Too full and it’s a full-toss. Too short and it’s a half volley. That’s OK in white ball cricket as you’ve got boundary riders but with traditional Test fields you’re going to go for some tap.

However, with the way the English are batting don’t be surprised if we see more yorkers, knuckle balls and slower ball bouncers tossed down by the Aussies as the series goes on.

In case you missed this peach from Pat, here it is:

Are tickets to the cricket too expensive? It’s a question worth asking, especially as the sport is so often accused of being elitist.

The excellent Phil Walker dives into this important debate:

Don’t worry mate. I think both teams will want to win this when they get out there

‘Bazball’? Shazbat!

“Good evening Daniel.” Hi Neil Cowan from Down Under. All good your side I hope.

“Mr Grumpy from Wallan (that’s in Victoria, don’t yer know) would like to advise that if he never ever encounters the term ‘Bazball’ again, it will be much, much too soon. Do we really need to dumb this game down to that level? He asks.”

Think of it as marketing guff. As Matthew McConaughey’s character in Wolf of Wall Street said, “It’s Fugayzi, fugazi. It’s a whazy. It’s a woozie. It’s fairy dust. It doesn’t exist. It’s never landed. It is no matter. It’s not on the elemental chart. It’s not f****** real.”

What’s in a name, really?

“My Dad was wont to call me “Dan Dan the lavatory man.” I don’t know why. My name is Andy.”

My uni mates still call me ‘Stan’. So there’s that, Andy Brittain.

I’ve done the maths and, at four an over, Australia will need 43.5 overs to reach their target. One or two more wickets in hand and they’d be in pole position. Still in the balance I reckon.

Here’s Josh Robinson with some perspective:

“Morning Dan, morning everybody. In a situation such as this I’d generally say that down to a certain point, the more overs are taken out of the game, the more the scales are tipped towards the chasing side. Were the full quota of 98 overs to be bowled, it’s a straight shoot-out between 174 runs and 7 wickets. As the time decreases down to somewhere around 25 overs (perhaps even a little lower than that), the batting side can afford to take more risks in the knowledge that there’s just not that much time for the bowlers to take the wickets. Much less than 20 and it’s a question of how seriously the batting side will have a go (and how hard, and for how long, if wickets start to fall). I’d say the state of the match doesn’t meaningfully change until 30 overs have been lost, at which point each over taken out of the game gives a slight advantage to the batting side.”

Travis Head of Australia arrives on the team bus. Photograph: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

Is Bazball better than Glastonbury?

Here’s the excellent Archie Rhind-Tutt – a name familiar to all Football Weekly fans:

“Over with a friend, German Tom, for Glastonbury from Cologne. We were due to stay in London today, make final preparations BUT THEN… Took him to the pub last night to watch the final session / make a stab at explaining cricket to him. Sufficient attention was obtained. Broad’s late spell had me checking Day 5 tickets and here we are, sat on a National Express coach just outside Birmingham, hoping the rain shifts shortly after the traffic does. German Tom could be about to experience one of the best days of sport he’ll ever see (he supports Hamburg)…or I’ve lugged him up here for a day of rain in Birmingham. Either way, an unforgettable experience.”

And there, folks, is why Bazball works. Sure it’s a silly marketing term that is merely a shorthand for a slightly more aggressive brand of cricket. But it’s a hook. And it forces other teams to respond and talk about it and do something different (or stick to what they believe in and defend their position). It’s why this team, love them or hate them, is so good for the game.

I hope you have a brilliant day Archie and German Tom.

Australia still in with a shout?

“Cameron Green seems to have a cushy little number as an ,almost , non bowling all rounder. Can’t understand the hype around him. Mitchell Marsh looks a better option to me but what do I know?”

Don’t talk yourself down, John Jones. I’ve seen so-called experts make ridiculous calls in this game. Your view is as valid as anyone else’s.

I like Green. His height is a factor. Glib, perhaps, but his ability to hit an awkward length hard is what makes him a slippery customer. And I back his batting. I know a few in my local cricket club (hi Millsy, if you’re reading this) don’t rate him, but I’d have him in my team. =

Root the spinner?

“Hi Dan-the-dude” excellent, btw, Robin Hazlehurst. “Not enough thinking outside the box in the YJB/Foakes debate, not enough true bazballing. If Moeen and Leach are knacked and England don’t have any other spinners, then the issue is resolved - play both Bairstow and Foakes and let Root be the spinner. He’s done ok at it recently, hasn’t he? Or if that might overload him, then maybe Brooke can share the load. He looked pretty spicy when he bowled in the first innings. Or if Bairstow goes into a steaming funk when he has the gloves removed, then toss him the ball and ask him to charge in and vent his rage that way. Would certainly not be what the oppo expect and would probably be entertaining one way or another.”

I’m not sure Root would fancy that. And I also don’t think he’s good enough to be a frontline spinner. And I also don’t think you’d want to burden him with that extra job. But it’s funky and I like where your head is at.

Even the Aussie are on board with Baz:

“Oh how we pine for the days when Australia batted first, crawled to 450 or so by after lunch on day two … Not. It’s been a few years since I’ve sat up late (ish) in Perth watching cricket. Last night was captivating. A contest between batsmen who wouldn’t allow bowlers to just bowl line and length and bowlers who were nearly up to task. Long may it last”

Thanks Ross McGillivray. I lived in Perth for a couple of years when I was younger. Would love to go back.

Jonathan May is asking some difficult questions:

“May I ask how many overs are left when they get back on the pitch? I’m reading that they will try and get the full quota (98 overs) in from the moment play commences. Are overs not deducted on a proportionate basis (as I believe has always been the case?) Some people were saying England upped the tempo yesterday to put overs back into the game, but if no overs are lost, that would render the tactic unnecessary.”

The good thing about playing cricket in England is that the sun sets late. So I see no reason why we won’t get a decent amount. Now how many exactly remains a mystery. I’d be astounded if we get 98 in. And yes, I think England’s breezy batting (and even their first innings declaration) had something to do with the weather. Unless I’m mistaken this rain is a little late.

Thanks everyone for the messages. If you’re bored of my natter can I recommend this outstanding piece from my mate, James Wallace: Cricket balls and Holocaust survivors. I promise you’ve never read anything like it before:

“Daz, Dazza, Dazzy McDazface” Those are more appropriate for a Darren, than a Daniel, but I’m loving your energy Hugh Maguire.

“I’m not going to offer anything other than frothing excitement for todays play. There’s going to be plenty more whatiffery as the day pans out for both sides whatever the outcome. I’m back with the OBO mistress Hope. Though I’ve swiped right on Expectation. I think Hope knows and today may end up with both or neither.”

Little expectation here. Let me ask the group a question… How many overs do Australia need to knock these runs off?

Good to get some Aussie correspondence. Here’s Gervase Greene from Sydney’s eastern ‘burbs:

“As to the ‘whole Bazball thing’, sorry to be so prosaic: surely they are playing that way because the previous approach didn’t work? Which is why it’s a brilliantly sensible strategy. Please leave out all the blather evoking slow-motion running across a windswept beach to a Vangelis soundtrack (anyone for unbranded merch?). England are all about winning, and this is a way of - just maybe - of getting close to that again. Which is fair enough.”

Right you are Gervase. They hit rock bottom playing a placid brand of cricket and they reverted to what served them so well in the white ball game. What’s more, they have the batters to score at 4.5 an over. It’s exciting and bold, but it also makes cricket sense.

Should Australia be chasing a smaller target? If they do fall short (either with a loss or a draw) will they rue the firm wagging of England’s tail?

Geoff Lemon says so which means it must be true:

I’ve just been alphad by Ronald Glover:

“Hi Dan, how about “Fourth Dan” for you? After (Google tells me) the other Dans who write for the Guardian (Sabbagh, Boffey, and Harris). Powerful but sadly also unintentionally dismissive.”

“Hi Daniel. Really looking forward to this afternoon - surely no chance of an Aussie win now given the time and conditions?”

It’s looking that way, Andrew Bennett.

“Watching the highlights of the back end of yesterday’s action led to a very important question re the travelling Australian fans and their colour coordinated outfits.

“(a) There appears to be both a yellow and dark green option - what does each mean? Are they different fan clubs or supporter organisations? And (b) how do they organise themselves into very neat blocks of each colour in the stands? Doesn’t seem to be any mixing of greens and yellows, but with random amounts of English/neutral/other fans in between each row?”

“All very important stuff, I’m sure you’ll agree.”

Absolutely! These are deeply important questions and I have no answers. Chalk them down to life’s mysteries.

Start delayed due to rain

No play before 1.10pm BST / 10.10pm AEST. Sad news folks but we’re going to have to keep the chat going for some time. Lunch will be taken at 12.30pm BST with no play til then. Forecast is better this afternoon but a draw now looming large.

A fair bit of water has fallen in Birmingham. Photograph: Steve Bond/PPAUK/Shutterstock

What does Nathan Lyon do in his hotel room? I’m going to regret typing these next words, but now I really wish I knew.

Always good to get a line from inside the room. Here’s my colleague, Luke McLaughlin:

“I’ve heard more than one pundit opine that if England win, all of Stokes’s decisions during the match will be vindicated, and if Australia win, then the same becomes true of Cummings. Surely this is a vast oversimplification?

“Anyway, England’s main lessons from this remarkable Test match must be: 1) Bazball shouldn’t mean it’s OK to toss wickets away cheaply. 2) Foakes must play, Bairstow stays as a batsman. I do worry that the fact Bairstow is a lovely lad, and very popular within the team, means he gets too much leeway with his keeping.”

That’s the nature of elite sport, innit? Pep Guardiola pointed out that he won the treble because a striker missed a header from three yards out. If that went in, would Pep be a fraud? No. But we deal in binary results. Makes for good chat though, doesn’t it?

I agree with your second point. If England lose I bet they’ll be kicking themselves for a few soft dismissals.

‘Dan-ster’. I like it.

Loads of chat about YJB and Foakes:

Timothy Sanders from Leeds: “I think Barney is right, that ‘it would be progressive, not regressive, to bring Foakes into this team’, in line with England’s philosophy of how to play Test cricket. If it’s about having fun, taking twenty wickets, and showing the paying public your very best skills, then surely the practical application of Bazball means picking your very best wicketkeeper? I say go with Foakes as the way for this team to live its values. Then they just have to decide on the best 5 from the 6 batters!”

Stephen Brown who has offered ‘Big Dan’ as a nickname: “For me, Foakes should be in the team. Having a very good wicket keeper vs a good wicket keeper can be worth having another batter who averages 40-50 in the team. And who wouldn’t want to add that? So the question becomes, who do you leave out? Weirdly, I’d say the person underperforming their playing role in the team the most over the last year might actually be Stokes. But we can’t exactly drop him and let him captain from the touchlines. Which means the solution is probably to let Bairstow open. Ducket has more runs as an opener under Stokes than Crawly despite playing half the games, so he should probably be given the first shot of opening alongside Bairstow.”

Joe Roberts: “If it is true that Bairstow must be in the side due to last year’s heroics, it is also true that Crawley has done very little to justify his place in this side, having contributed very little to the success over the last 12 months. Not to mention that Foakes has been a vital part of that success, not just with the gloves, but with the bat as well, and surely warrants the same treatment as Bairstow.”

Tom Nolan: “Crawley out for Foakes with YJB opening? Won‘t happen after Crawley‘s first innings knock here but seems a logical way to get Foakes and Bairstow into the same side.”

Geoff Wignall with a another whacky idea: “My new solution would be someone with sound defensive technique yet capable of serious aggression who isn’t scoring many in his current slot: one Ben Stokes.”

Foakes for Brook? To be honest, I hadn’t considered that. But Richard O’Hagan makes an intersting point that has got me thinking:

“I know that this will be controversial, but I think you have to choose between Bairstow and Brook. Brook came into the side as the replacement for the injured Bairstow and from a batting perspective they are probably on a par with one another, save that YJB is vastly more experienced. But at the same time the runs that England have conceded as a result of Bairstow’s rustiness with the gloves could well be the difference between winning and losing this Test, as they pretty much negate his contribution with the bat. For my money Foakes has to play and one of those two has to stand down if England are to have any chance of winning this series.”

Let’s not forget that Foakes is still a brilliant batter. Sure he doesn’t have the firepower of Brook or Bairstow, but it’s not like he’s a mug with the willow. And if Ali plays (finger blister permitting) they still have the punch in the lower order.

Email gremlins fixed: I wasn’t aware that the link to my email was broken. Should be sorted now. If you’ve been trying to get in touch but haven’t done so, please try again.

This is a really, really long email from Simon in Cornwall. But with nothing going on, I’ll share it in it’s entirety with my two cents between each paragraph (yes, paragraph, strap in):

“I have a question about the reverse ramp. How does the batter decide that that is the shot they are going to play? It seems that they get into position for the shot so early that it can’t be based on the trajectory of the ball - does the batter decide before the ball is bowled that they are going to play that shot, and just commit? I get that you wouldn’t play it against an unpredictable spinner, and that you need some kind of predictability in the bowlers style - is there maybe some subtle thing in finger position or wrist action that makes the batter know it is a good shot selection? Or is it just hit and hope?”

It has to be premeditated. Bowlers like Boland who put it on the same spot over and over again are particularly susceptible to being ramped. A lot of hit and hope for sure.

“I’d also like to say something about Bazball. I think something that hasn’t been mentioned much is Ben Stokes’ struggles with mental health, and the fact that it seems to me that Bazball is an attempt by Stokes to take the parts of the game that may cause a player to struggle, and just…..remove them. Many elite sportspeople have suffered badly in this arena, and not just cricketers - see ‘The Edge’, about the 09-13 England team, but also Nick Kyrgios, Mark Selby, Naomi Osaka, Simone Biles, Michael Phelps, and god knows how many others from years gone by.”

Oh, Bazball is therapy. Or so said Barney Ronay in this wonderful piece.

“The reason I have so much respect for this style of play is that it seems to me that after taking brave decisions to protect his own wellbeing over the years, Stokes has developed a style that extends this protection to his whole team. Stokes has a greater understanding of his teammates, and of the nature of leadership and sporting ambition than any leader I can think of, and this goes far beyond ‘finding a way to win’. Stokes has taken bold, innovative steps to protect, nurture and develop the whole person, not just their skills and sporting qualities, knowing full well that, coincidentally, this is how you get the best out of them.”

Bold, innovative, daring, carefree. That’s why it' has captured so many people, win or lose.

“Its interesting that the list of athletes I mention who have publicly struggled with their mental health are all proponents of individual sports (tennis, snooker, gymnastics, swimming), and this is the first example I know of where the thinking has been extended to a team sport. I see Gareth Southgate doing something similar, but in a gentler and less bold way, and the results there are fairly clear too. As someone who has had some pretty loopy mental health over the years, I can not tell you how much I respect what Stokes (and BmcC) is doing.”

Mate, thank you for opening up. I reckon a lot of people reading this right now will relate.

“The way England are playing will ripple outwards and change the way test cricket is played, and more importantly how it is perceived that it SHOULD be played, maybe even save the format from a spiral of stagnation and diminishing gate receipts as everyone rushes to whizzier formats, leaving a trail of broken and forgotten players who gave their all but failed in some way that comes to define them forever. I adore the man, and in true Bazball style, wish with all my heart that he stays true to his new methods through the whole series, even if it means we lose every test. It feels more important than that, to me.”

Even football is hooked!

“I understand that this isn’t how a lot of fans feel - the ‘win at all costs’ mentality is irresistible to a sports fan, even if that cost is the health and wellbeing of the very players they revere. Bazball reminds us all that athletes are people, and that people do their best work when they love what they are doing, are given freedom to express themselves and are respected for doing so. Bazball, to me, isn’t just a cricketing ideology, it’s not a cricketing tactic, and its certainly not the new-age, man-feeling, bro-vibes rubbish it can so easily be dismissed as. Its an affirmation of the humanity at the heart of cricket, of sport, and of competition, and I hope it lasts forever. Or at least til the end of the fifth test.”

And let’s not forget that England were rubbish before Bazball. This is not simply the unshackling of players but also a cohesive strategy to get the best out of a talented group. It’s daring and brave, but also calculated (even if it doesn’t always seem that way).

Thank you for a brilliant mail. I really enjoyed that.

“Hi Dan. Looking forward to a cracking day’s play!”

Me too, Damian Johnson, let’s hope we get enough of it.

“Regards Bairstow/Foakes, YJB is allowed one bad game I would say, and horses for courses, Foakes stays in contention for tours in Asia or the driest of dry wickets.

“If he were to come in, any of the top 3 should be under pressure and this includes Pope who never seems to be mentioned despite a highly mediocre record, especially against the big boys. Don’t get me wrong, cracking looking batter but he never seems to be under any pressure - is this a Surrey thing!?”

Hmmm. I’m not sure it’s a Surrey thing. If that was the case then Foakes would be playing. Pope is class. No doubt about that. I saw him score a coming of age ton against South Africa in Gqeberha. He’ll be alright in the long run. But you’re right. A few more failures and some serious questions will need to be asked.

YummyBear has become our official weather correspondent. And yup, all fingers, toes and limbs crossed.

Oh man. I’m watching the Sky feed and it looks really grim. I take back what I said earlier and I’m now with Will Southworth. Will be incredible if they get out there in time to finish the game. How frustrating!

But, if they do, one team in particular will fancy it.

Oh dear… So advantage England. Especially as Warner is in the shed. But hey, Head can give it a whack too. How many overs do you reckon Australia will need to fancy having a go?

I loved this piece by Barney from last night. And would love to know what you think about the Bairstow-Foakes debate. For my money, Young JB has to play. He’s just so destructive with the bat. But there’s no question Foakes is the outstanding keeper in the country. Does that mean Duckett drops out? But then who opens? Should Pope make way? Ludicrous! There are no easy answers in the epoch of Baz.

Granted this was 20 minutes ago, but it’s not looking great. Don’t worry, we’ll get plenty of cricket. We just won’t start at 11.

Preamble

Has it only been four days? At the risk of heaping more hyperbole on top of a narrative oozing with the stuff, this has already been an almighty contest that has packed more action than most series.

It began on a road and saw Joe Root unfurl a sumptuous century before the bucket-hatted Ben Stokes declared on the first day.

Then Usman Khawaja batted and batted and batted until he was given a sweary send-off by Ollie Robinson. Did it cross the line? Have these lines ever existed? Are the Aussies now the meek ones in this ancient relationship?

Root attempted a reverse scoop from the first ball of day three. Pat Cummins was outstanding. Nathan Lyon picked up a four-for. Moeen Ali’s finger fell apart. Stuart Broad did Stuart Broad things and now, as we begin this final day of an epic battle, Australia need 174 runs and England need seven wickets.

There are echoes of 2005 and the narrow two run win for England that helped ignite the greatest Ashes in living memory. If the past four days are anything to go by, we might have a contender to that particular title.

My name is Daniel, but in this Bazball age you can call me Dan, Danny Boy or frankly any other whacky nickname you like (please don’t make me regret that).

There’s rain about in Birmingham but all the journos on the ground reckon we’ll have play after a slight delay. Don’t worry. We’re getting a result. Of that I’m certain.

If you fancy dropping a line please do. Email or Twitter. You know the drill.

Strap in folks. This is going to be a good ’un.