It wasn't the old Jimmy Anderson just an old Jimmy Anderson. Very unthreatening with the ball and looking every bit his age in the field.

What complete nonsense that was a perfectly fair catch.

I also think that England played with a more controlled aggression last summer & in Pakistan. This series so far the batting has just been reckless & they have also had far too much to say off the pitch as well. They seem to me to have got carried away by the hype around them & are now batting with their ego's rather than their brains.

This England side might think they are invincible but that where the comparisons with The Invincibles end. Also they had Bradman and his record Headingly was absolutely phenomenal even by his own incredible standards.

We have 18 first class counties, Australia have just 6 first class states. We have more than double the number of professional cricketers in England.

Three men out hooking when the trap is set is brainless & it could have been worse Root had one let off with the no ball & Brook was dropped at square leg.

There is a difference between attacking cricket and brainless cricket. Take Joe Root he is a high quality batsman who has always played positively and scored at a decent rate he does not need to be throwing his wicket as he has done in his last two innings. If this England team lose this series they won't be remembered for playing attacking cricket but as the first England team to lose at home to Australia since 2001.

A good fight back this morning and early afternoon but that batting later in the day was sheer lunacy, Australia set the trap and the England batsmen could not reign their ego's in. To quote the late great Bob Willis it was as simple as 'Put the cheese in the trap, in goes the mouse, off goes his head'. On the bright side good to see Stokes batting with his brain turned on this evening & playing the situation rather than all this nonsense of not caring about results. That can only bode well for England tomorrow even if it means taking a backward step. Cleary out Because they were batting well but when Australia changed their plans and went to the short ball with 3 men set back England didn't adapt and needlessly threw 3 wickets away.

Dropped catches happen in pretty much every test match, Australia dropped catches to in this test. What doesn't happen in every test is a foolhardy declaration.

Bairstow despite scoring nearly 100 runs in the match had a negative net contribution with his missed stumping of Green on 0 drop of Carey on 26 in the first innings and his failure to even attempt to catch Khawaja on 1 in the second innings. Bairstow is a good batsman but he isn't a very good wicket keeping if you think he should keep fine but then don't be surprised when he misses chances that a better keeper would take and then use it as an excuse.

It's not some sort of hindsight from me I criticised the declaration on Friday. But on the wicket keeping front I have always believed that you play your best wicket keeper but I don't suppose that Ben Foakes striking at less than 50 in test match cricket fits the current brand of cricket that you are championing. And funnily enough you agreed with dropping Foakes.

Lost his last two though both due to reckless arrogant decisions from him.

Souness used to be a good fair pundit but he's ended up being a bitter old man with agendas.

You don't think that the shots played by Bairstow & Ali in the first innings and by Brook and Root in the second innings were reckless?

For the first time I'm beginning to have doubts that Rory will win another major. His driving last week was phenomenal, its as well as I have seen him drive the ball for years. The rest of the game the especially on Sunday just like at St Andrews last year was far too conservative, on both occasions he played like someone trying not to lose rather than trying to go out and win. The way he played the 14th on Sunday epitomised it, he has to be going for the green with that 2nd shot rather than laying up, the 14th was the last real scoreable hole on the course. You get the feeling if he is going to get another major victory it will most likely be from a final round comeback. I didn't think that LACC was a good course for a US Open, Clark's tee shot on the last finding the fairway rather summed up it's problems.

There is nothing wrong with being positive but England's play at times is reckless & brain dead, the declaration in this game was just crazy. As I said on here on Friday If Australia were told after losing the toss that they would have been batting at close with England having made less than 400 they would have been very happy. You get your runs in the 1st innings, England could easily have made 450 first innings and put down a real marker early on instead they let Australia off the hook. The first innings of a series is a chance to put down a marker from the off think back to Australia batting first under Waugh in 2002 they made nearly 500 under Ponting in 2006 they made over 600.

That's the last two tests now that England have lost & both through reckless arrogant decisions from the Captain. In Wellington it was enforcing the follow on and in this test by leaving runs out there in the first innings. You get your runs in the first innings.

With the changes being made in the Champions League it will be a Super League in all but name.

This is about as good an explanation as I can find for the upcoming rather convoluted new format. Champions League revamp - How the competition will work from 2024-25 - ESPN

If Australia were told after losing the toss that they would have been batting at close with England having made less than 400 they would have been very happy. A crazy declaration get your runs in the first innings, the way Root was playing even with only 2 wickets left England could have easily added another 50 or so runs. Stokes needs to be careful that his positive captaincy doesn't veer into foolish arrogance, it cost England last time out in Wellington let's hope that it doesn't here.

The reason the European competitions get bigger and why the Champions League is going to have an extra 64 games from 24/25 is because of TV money which ironically enough you are defending when it comes to the Premier League.

And who is one of the top members of Uefa's executive committee & Chair of the ECA it is Nasser Al-Khelaifi the chairman of PSG who's other jobs include being the minster without portfolio in the Qatari government. In one post you complain that its all about money then in your very next post say you have no problem with clubs being owned by nations state who invest. So which is it? Because the more nation states get involved the more money there is going to be at the very top of the game.

A strange take that you are criticising it being all about money for big clubs when on the previous page you were saying that you had no problem with state ownership. The more clubs that are state owned the more money there will be for the big clubs and the wider the gap gets between them and clubs from smaller nations.

Fair being the key word there.

Newcastle are state owned. Clubs like Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Spurs (who don't even belong in the conversation to be honest) whilst being hugely rich clubs cannot financially get near clubs owned by entire nation states. Newcastle and City have bottomless pits of money. The fact that City willing let them go they are by definition cast offs. It should do. It certainly isn't a good thing for clubs like Rovers.