From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket



McCullum and Stokes will probably rue for NOT selecting Bethell at #3
instead of taking the conservative route with Pope.

IF I were them, I would have definitely chosen Bethell instead of Pope
because you have to take a calculated bold gamble when playing the
worlds best team Australia in ashes.

What was Jacks thinking SLOGGING on "second ball" he faced when England
was ahead by just 30 odd runs?


I think England lost the series more because of muddled thinking than anything.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 07/01/2026 06:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

McCullum and Stokes will probably rue for NOT selecting Bethell at #3 instead of taking the conservative route with Pope.

IF I were them, I would have definitely chosen Bethell instead of Pope because you have to take a calculated bold gamble when playing the
worlds best team Australia in ashes.

It seems very unlikely that that one change would have made the
difference between losing and winning the Ashes, assuming that England
go on to lose the final Test, as seems very probable.

The Test where it would have been most likely to affect the outcome was Adelaide, where, given Pope's scores of 3 and 17, there is at least a significant chance that the inclusion of Bethell would have made up the
82-run difference.

At Brisbane (Pope 0 & 26), the size of the winning margin (8 wksts)
suggests that the chances of Bethell making the difference would have
been very low.

At Perth, where Pope (46 & 33) was the second-highest scorer in both
innings, only a few behind Brook and Atkinson respectively, and the
highest for England overall, the probability that Bethell would have
done ANY better, let alone enough to reverse the result, must be fairly low.
--
David North
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 1/7/2026 3:05 AM, David North wrote:

On 07/01/2026 06:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

McCullum and Stokes will probably rue for NOT selecting Bethell at #3
instead of taking the conservative route with Pope.

IF I were them, I would have definitely chosen Bethell instead of Pope
because you have to take a calculated bold gamble when playing the
worlds best team Australia in ashes.

It seems very unlikely that that one change would have made the
difference between losing and winning the Ashes, assuming that England
go on to lose the final Test, as seems very probable.

Not true.

Look at the BIG PICTURE.

Bethell helped England WIN Melbourne test with considerable contribution
in I2.

Now IMAGINE Pope in Bethell's place in that situation and everything
else remaining the same in the test.

Pope would have been out for less than 15 runs. Pope's batting has
always been OVERRATED to begin with especially in pressure situations
except occasional innings like the one vs India in Hyderabad.

The Test where it would have been most likely to affect the outcome was Adelaide, where, given Pope's scores of 3 and 17, there is at least a significant chance that the inclusion of Bethell would have made up the 82-run difference.

YES.

At Brisbane (Pope 0 & 26), the size of the winning margin (8 wksts)
suggests that the chances of Bethell making the difference would have
been very low.

Not true.

When your No.3 scores a 50+ and consumes good no.of overs TIRING the opponent's bowlers, it gives more confidence to the rest of the batsmen
coming down the order, not to mention some good rest.

At Perth, where Pope (46 & 33) was the second-highest scorer in both innings, only a few behind Brook and Atkinson respectively, and the
highest for England overall, the probability that Bethell would have
done ANY better, let alone enough to reverse the result, must be fairly
low.

You are NOT considering the psychological affect on the team when your
No.3 scores like Bethell.

Bethell can also bowl a few overs too, giving some rest to strike bowlers.



Jacob Bethell: Can England's star of the future be their saviour of the now?

Astonishing debut century lived up to the hype, but England need even
more from him to atone for other failings https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bethell-star-future-saviour-of-now-ashes-1518447





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 1/7/2026 3:05 AM, David North wrote:

On 07/01/2026 06:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

McCullum and Stokes will probably rue for NOT selecting Bethell at #3
instead of taking the conservative route with Pope.

IF I were them, I would have definitely chosen Bethell instead of Pope
because you have to take a calculated bold gamble when playing the
worlds best team Australia in ashes.

It seems very unlikely that that one change would have made the
difference between losing and winning the Ashes, assuming that England
go on to lose the final Test, as seems very probable.

The Test where it would have been most likely to affect the outcome was Adelaide, where, given Pope's scores of 3 and 17, there is at least a significant chance that the inclusion of Bethell would have made up the 82-run difference.

At Brisbane (Pope 0 & 26), the size of the winning margin (8 wksts)
suggests that the chances of Bethell making the difference would have
been very low.

At Perth, where Pope (46 & 33) was the second-highest scorer in both innings, only a few behind Brook and Atkinson respectively, and the
highest for England overall, the probability that Bethell would have
done ANY better, let alone enough to reverse the result, must be fairly
low.

I certainly think the result would have been a tightly contested 3-2 or
2-3 IF England played Bethell at No.3 instead of Pope and so do some
cricket columnists.




From Cricinfo column by Vithushan:


"The elation at Bethell's arrival as a Test cricketer was largely lost
in the wider frustration at another England opportunity missed. It
speaks to the management's indecision about the No.3 berth that, in this innings alone, Bethell has outscored Ollie Pope's haul of 125 from the
first three live Tests. Things could have been different on this tour,
for a myriad of reasons. Add this one to the list of what-ifs."

His story had been a blend of experiences, proper preparation and a
focus on technique. It is not quite in step with how this England team
has traditionally operated, and yet this is the only set-up that would
have taken a punt on such a player in the first place.

Alas, they did not do so when it really mattered. The Ashes were long
gone before Bethell arrived. But the future of the Test side is brighter
now that he is here to stay. This shining beacon ofrCa




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 07/01/2026 16:19, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

On 1/7/2026 3:05 AM, David North wrote:

On 07/01/2026 06:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

McCullum and Stokes will probably rue for NOT selecting Bethell at #3
instead of taking the conservative route with Pope.

IF I were them, I would have definitely chosen Bethell instead of
Pope because you have to take a calculated bold gamble when playing
the worlds best team Australia in ashes.

It seems very unlikely that that one change would have made the
difference between losing and winning the Ashes, assuming that England
go on to lose the final Test, as seems very probable.

Not true.

Look at the BIG PICTURE.

Bethell helped England WIN Melbourne test with considerable contribution
in I2.

Now IMAGINE Pope in Bethell's place in that situation and everything
else remaining the same in the test.

Pope would have been out for less than 15 runs. Pope's batting has
always been OVERRATED to begin with especially in pressure situations
except occasional innings like the one vs India in Hyderabad.

The Test where it would have been most likely to affect the outcome
was Adelaide, where, given Pope's scores of 3 and 17, there is at
least a significant chance that the inclusion of Bethell would have
made up the 82-run difference.

YES.

At Brisbane (Pope 0 & 26), the size of the winning margin (8 wksts)
suggests that the chances of Bethell making the difference would have
been very low.

Not true.

When your No.3 scores a 50+ and consumes good no.of overs TIRING the opponent's bowlers, it gives more confidence to the rest of the batsmen coming down the order, not to mention some good rest.

_IF_ he scores 50+, which Bethell did once in 4 innings in this series.
In most innings, he won't, like everyone else in Test history who has
played more than 10 innings, except Bradman. Note that, in 6 Tests, he
has yet to get past 16 in the first innings. As for "consumes good no.of overs", he has faced 50 balls 3 times in 12 Test innings; it's not like
he's a blocker.

At Perth, where Pope (46 & 33) was the second-highest scorer in both
innings, only a few behind Brook and Atkinson respectively, and the
highest for England overall, the probability that Bethell would have
done ANY better, let alone enough to reverse the result, must be
fairly low.

You are NOT considering the psychological affect

effect

on the team when your
No.3 scores like Bethell.

Bethell can also bowl a few overs too, giving some rest to strike bowlers.

That would have been useful at Brisbane and Adelaide, but not at Perth
any more than it was at Melbourne.
--
David North
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.sport.cricket

On 08/01/2026 05:52, David North wrote:

_IF_ he scores 50+, which Bethell did once in 4 innings in this
series. In most innings, he won't, like everyone else in Test
history who has played more than 10 innings, except Bradman.

Perhaps worth noting that normal players [including Bradman,
for once] beat their averages around one time in three. It is quite
normal to make several low scores in succession. We should not be
surprised if [eg] Joe Root fails to score 50 in [eg] six consecutive
innings [eg three completed Tests] from time to time. OTOH, the
siren voices, that X should be dropped, tend to start at four or
so consecutive [relative] failures. Esp if the failure looks to
conservative commentators to be due to poor shot selection; it's
easy to blame the failed ramp [or whatever] and forget the times
that shot has been productive.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Handel
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2