The Ashes 25/26

[STEVIE B]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly, I don't think anyone is yet to identify what the real problem is with this inconsistency.

 

It's not attitude, pretty much the same England team was losing Tests for fun - and losing them equally badly to more inferior opposition - with other styles of play.

It's not talent levels - Brook and Root, to name two, are world-class bats and while England miss Broad and Anderson, the issue doesn't appear to lie with the bowling.

 

So what's going on? Systemic problem?

The batters aren’t patient enough, rarely read a game situation. Root is the blueprint.

The bowlers aren’t targeting the wickets enough (in this Test, at least). They’re taking 2 modes of dismissals away. 
Cricket isn’t a very complicated game, but is technical. Occupy the crease, bowl at the 3 bits of wood. Then tweak to make it work better. 

This Series has gone, l don’t know what we’ll learn from it. Maybe the 'Bazball' approach only works on very flat wickets in England against certain sides, but l doubt the egos will have it. Although, If we lose this Series 5-0, McCullum’s job must be in some doubt. 

 

[STEVIE B]

47 minutes ago, CL Fox said:

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.

Do you think the same could be said of England when it comes to rugby ? 

An abundance of talent, but possibly underachieved at the very top ? 

Edited 6 December 2025 by STEVIE B

[CL Fox]

22 minutes ago, STEVIE B said:

Do you think the same could be said of regarding England when it comes to rugby ? 

An abundance of talent, but possibly underachieved at the very top ? 

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.

Edited 6 December 2025 by CL Fox

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, CL Fox said:

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.

I'll have to check that out, thank you. 

 

I think there's merit to that argument - Jardine won the Ashes in Oz nearly 100 years ago by being a ruthless bastard (despite having public school upbringing himself) and so perhaps a lot of England teams lack that nasty edge for when it's needed. 

 

21 minutes ago, STEVIE B said:

The batters aren’t patient enough, rarely read a game situation. Root is the blueprint.

The bowlers aren’t targeting the wickets enough (in this Test, at least). They’re taking 2 modes of dismissals away. 
Cricket isn’t a very complicated game, but is technical. Occupy the crease, bowl at the 3 bits of wood. Then tweak to make it work better. 

This Series has gone, l don’t know what we’ll learn from it. Maybe the 'Bazball' approach only works on very flat wickets in England against certain sides, but l doubt the egos will have it. Although, If we lose this Series 5-0, McCullum’s job must be in some doubt. 

 

Clearly the current approach doesn't really work, but then I'm damned if I know a better way either. Surely just targeting the stumps has been identified as a possibility and then dismissed for whatever reason? It would be nice to have a further explanation there. 

 

This team has clearly shown it's capable of beating sides it should beat and often doing it with style. They just lack the extra something (whatever it is) to overcome the most difficult challenges in the most difficult environments. 

[deejdeej]

Stokes and Smith get a century apiece then an Aussie batting collapse and we win. Easy.

[STEVIE B]

3 hours ago, deejdeej said:

Stokes and Smith get a century apiece then an Aussie batting collapse and we win. Easy.

Is Smith allowed a third innings then ? 
I’d prefer Root to be allowed another go, personally ! 

[deejdeej]

1 hour ago, STEVIE B said:

Is Smith allowed a third innings then ? 
I’d prefer Root to be allowed another go, personally ! 

 only had one beer earlier but it must have hit me, Jacks i meant.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Really cba to go today 

 

The Barmy Army is as much of a cult towards the team as the KPFC Facebook army 

[Aus Fox]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Really cba to go today 

 

The Barmy Army is as much of a cult towards the team as the KPFC Facebook army 

My advice is go and enjoy the day, I’ve been to a fair few days with the Barmy Army over the years - seen some amazing highs, and some horrible lows - but never really had a bad day out.

Usually the suns out, the beer is flowing and there’s plenty of laughs to be had. I think for me personally, I love seeing an England win, but the defeats or poor performances don’t quite hit me in the same way a Leicester defeat does.

Watch out for those Queensland Thunderstorms this afternoon, they can be quite spectacular.

[1972 Fox]

TNT coverage/commentary is awful.

 

Who is the monotone Aussie who keeps talking and talking about nothing interesting?

[Aus Fox]

Decent first session, and rain possibly due at the end of the second session. 
If we can get through this next session there’s a chance we might be able to hang on for a draw - yes I am clutching at straws.

But it will be the best punishment for the slow over rate.

[Voll Blau]

20 hours ago, CL Fox said:

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.

I do think there's something to it. Look at who the toughest competitors are in this England side, Root and Stokes.

 

Both grew up in the club game - and the northern club game at that. By quite a few accounts, Root didn't enjoy life at Worksop College after he won a scholarship there in the sixth form.

 

Anyway, great to wake up to some attrition today.

Edited 7 December 2025 by Voll Blau

[goose2010]

I expected to wake up this morning and it be all over, I certainly didn't expect to still see Stokes and Jacks batting. 

 

Fair play for digging in so far. The frustrating thing is it shows we can do it, so why don't we! Play the 'traditional' way, go after the bad balls and frustrate the bowlers?! 

 

If the rest of the team learnt how to leave the  ball we would actually be  in a better place. 

[CL Fox]

8 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

The Barmy Army is as much of a cult towards the team as the KPFC Facebook army 

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

[Tommy Fresh]

Neser is the perfect example of why we should of had an option like Cook in the squad, he also did well for the Lions last year in Australia 

[Super_horns]

Great catch by Smith but good to see some resistance being shown  

so far .

 

Too late I know .

Edited 7 December 2025 by Super_horns

[MaidstoneFox]

18 hours ago, CL Fox said:

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.

Yeh it's an interesting book and theory.  Last time England won in Australia though, the privately educated, Alastair Cook, scored a ton of runs. As your final point highlights, quite a few Aussies went to private schools, such as their resilient captain and fast-bowler, Pat Cummins and their tough, swash-buckling batsman, Travis Head

[Aus Fox]

As soon as one falls they all fall, same and same again. Huge difference between the two teams here. The Aussies took their time rebuilt and every player made a score. Time and time again we lose a wicket and 2 or 3 more fall with in a short space of time. 

[1972 Fox]

Not sure if been mentioned already, but why no England flags on show at the Gabba?

 

Flags draped everywhere in Perth, so presume have been banned in Brisbane?

[Voll Blau]

17 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

Yeh it's an interesting book and theory.  Last time England won in Australia though, the privately educated, Alastair Cook, scored a ton of runs. As your final point highlights, quite a few Aussies went to private schools, such as their resilient captain and fast-bowler, Pat Cummins and their tough, swash-buckling batsman, Travis Head

Suspect the difference is they may well have played a lot of grade cricket as well as schools cricket.

[Aus Fox]

6 for 220 odd to all out for 241 is pathetic again.

[STEVIE B]

42 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

6 for 220 odd to all out for 241 is pathetic again.

Not much will change going forward. Most batter's spots are safe as nobody is really pushing them, maybe that's why some play with a carefree attitude. The Lions aren't exactly pulling up any trees. 

Seems like it's harder to get out of this side, than getting into it.

No doubt the power's that be will blame the domestic county set-up. Again. 

 

Edited 7 December 2025 by STEVIE B

[Corky]

Let's be honest, the only thing justifying this being a five match series is the level of our support.

[coolhandfox]

Just think with this coach, captain combo we will have some amazing wins but will always lack consistency.

 

We are going to be trash by a bang average Oz side, who can play tough cricket.

Edited 7 December 2025 by coolhandfox

[Voll Blau]

Archer getting "champed" by Smith at the end sums that all up.