CL Fox

Presumably you'll have him on your show on Sunday. Is Graham handing out clown 🤡 emojis?

Its largely due to incompetence but it also appears a lot of things are up for sale. There's been rumours that Top's 'spending' has caused them to be losing cash reserves at an alarming rate for a while.

Some people are just wound up by everything.

Stokes is done isn't he. Sad times, but his body just cant do it. Call Rehan up as the all rounder for the next test.

Youre still thinking about his penis aren't you...

I dont think that had anything to do with the trust tbh - far more to do with bc game.

https://x.com/leicesterp88/status/2001710449264595374?s=46&t=LSI3SDXXIKmiEtJjckwavg

In this test?

The Australian batting has been exactly like England tbh. Poor shots everywhere.

Yeah Rachid Ghezzal and Diabete were absolutely incredible to be fair.

Huge gambling debts....

The one Wolves scored where Danny Ward was lying on the ground was pretty exceptional to be honest.

He was spotted in a fish and chip restaurant in Anstey last night. Make of that what you will.

Anyone tried the volley at Old Street? Thought it'd be a bit cringe but really liked it. Just stopped for one, had their Volley lager. Group of Germans in the corner watching St Pauli too. Decent lineup of beers too.

Been thinking ahead to next summer - feels like there might be some transition. Been wondering who will come in for Crawley as I cant see him lasting - Haines or Mckinney seem the most obvious but Hameed must have a shout with his record. Gay must have a chance too but Bethell seems the chosen one.

He went to Lutterworth as a child and he fell in love with the county.

Oh fair enough

Australia are such a sensitive bunch - start whinging if anyone has a go at them. Personally I like it.

He's right, but I think some of the criticism just borders on ridiculous - he slags Stokes off for teeing off a few years ago, even though he's been probably our most conservative batsman more recently. I just don't think we're good enough - we've tried every which way and every approach has failed - it's not like the conservative cricket under Silverwood did much good. Maybe it's a talent thing and the mentality is just a way of trying to shrug off the lack of ability? Crawley and Pope would be nowhere near the Australian team. Personally I'd like to see Key get the sack and they give Vaughan the job. Firstly, it removes him from my tv screen and radio, and then he actually has to put his money where his mouth is by actually delivering. Bloke dines out on McGrath treading on a ball constantly.

Good interview by Stokes. Sounds like he may have had it with a few players. Bat Stokes at 3 with Jack's at 6/7 and play an extra bowler next test. Probably Potts and Tongue in.

I don't think any of them would disagree with that. At least they actually sing unlike KPFC.

Possibly. Ive got the theory off chatgpt. Im not sure how it explains our lack of trophies in football but it makes loads of sense to me - barely any public school players in football as its so competitive. Yes — Crickonomics (by Tim Wigmore and Stefan Szymanski) discusses a provocative theory about the English public school system producing technically skilled but psychologically less “tough” cricketers, especially compared with players from countries like Australia or the West Indies. Here’s the idea clearly broken down: --- 1. What the Theory Actually Claims The authors argue that England’s elite private (“public”) school system: Produces players who are: Well-coached Technically polished Comfortable in structured environments But may under-prepare them for extreme pressure, hostility, and adversity at the highest international level. In contrast, many great cricketers from: Australia West Indies India Pakistan often grew up playing in harsher, less protected environments, where: Failure carried real personal consequences Competition was brutal and constant Selection was never guaranteed This, the theory says, can forge greater mental resilience and competitive edge. --- 2. The Core Mechanism: Comfort vs. Adversity English Public School Pathway Safe facilities Excellent coaching Small class sizes Cricket as an elite extracurricular Failure has low real-world cost This can unintentionally create: Risk-averse players Over-coached technique Less emotional adaptability under extreme stress Tougher Development Environments Elsewhere Poorer facilities Intense street or club cricket Playing against older players early Selection tied to livelihood or social mobility This tends to develop: Higher pain tolerance Stronger survival instincts Greater comfort with chaos and intimidation --- 3. The Ashes and Psychological Fragility Crickonomics links this theory to England’s frequent collapses under pressure, especially in Australia: Sudden batting collapses Loss of confidence after a few quick wickets Difficulty responding to aggressive fast bowling and sledging The argument is not that English players lack courage, but that: > Their development pathway does not systematically train them for sustained psychological warfare. --- 4. Important Nuance (The Authors Are Careful About This) The book does NOT claim: Public school players are soft Working-class players are automatically tougher Instead, it argues: Incentive structures shape psychology When failure is less costly during development, the mental tools for extreme survival pressure may be underdeveloped Toughness is trained by environment, not inherited by class --- 5. Why England Has Improved Recently The theory is partly supported by England’s transformation after about 2015–2019, when they: Rebuilt white-ball cricket around: Aggression Freedom to fail High-variance decision-making Selected more players from: State-school backgrounds Late-development pathways Changed coaching culture from “don’t lose” to “try to win” This helped create: The 2019 ODI World Cup The ultra-aggressive “Bazball” Test era later on --- 6. The Big Economic Point (Why This Is in Crickonomics) The authors frame this as a human capital and incentive design problem: England historically optimized for: Technical refinement Safety Tradition But neglected: Psychological stress inoculation Competitive ruthlessness So the system was efficient at producing good cricketers, but less efficient at producing great, battle-hardened ones. --- 7. Common Criticisms of the Theory Critics point out: Many tough English players did attend private schools (e.g., Andrew Flintoff later via scholarships) Australia also has elite private schools Mental toughness is hard to quantify Selection bias: we notice collapses more than resilience So it’s a strong explanatory lens, not a proven law. I remember the last time we won Flower took them to Germany for some SAS training which they said almost broke them but it obviously worked to some extent.

This theory may be absolutely mental but I read it in a book called criconomics. By and large most of the English players who get through are products of the public school system (duckett, pope, Crawley, Atkinson and smith for example). Largely due to the facilities they have access to. And they largely play in cricket thats not that tough growing up. In Australia and India its completely different. Its the national sport, everyone plays it and its tough as anything. So whilst resources get England so far, we just dont produce tough cricketers - so when its really hard we go to shit. There's no nasty streak in the side whatsoever. In the field you can see Stokes just isn't backed up. Im not sure you could ever prove it one way or another and there's plenty of players weve produced that are tough, but i just dont think its in our nature nor do we get enough players playing in it. Its an interesting read if you ever get the chance.

Hopefully this is the end of Rob Key. Mainly for his annoying lines like 'you should be able to watch a players highlights for 60 seconds and tell whether they're a good player or not'

Won't see out the next 45 minutes. So done with this lot. Stokes and McCullum had so much faith in a lot of these players but there's just as bad as the previous lot (bar Root obviously).