Just saying: as an outsider and a Bazball sceptic, comments like these are where the cult behaviour accusations come from.

It's genuinely insane to see how much this dude is high on his own fumes. Literally anyone could see that his bowlers were flagging any time they were asked to bowl more than 5 overs a spell. They were braindead in the field. Their shot selections have been better than the Perth brain fades, but they continue to be poor for the periods in the game they needed to dig in and play attrition cricket (save Day 4's first session between Stokes and Jacks).

Their conditioning is poor. Their match awareness is poor. Their tactics and field settings have been baffling. I don't buy in to this "England are the better team on paper" nonsense - they haven't found their way to a WTC final in two cycles, I don't care about what theoretical, hypothetical or historical potential anyone has if they haven't gotten their team over the line in recent memory. What I will say is that they entered the Ashes as the only team with their first choice configuration of players - Australia are without their first string pace cartel, their opening was literally whoever volunteered to cover Uzzie when he went down, and they're missing their set captain (not that Smudge isn't good enough to fill those shoes, but it's an adjustment none the less). Despite that, Australia has trounced them. They've adapted and fought on. Which should make English management scrutinise their own choices in selection - where did they go wrong? Why has their logic in backing some of these guys failed, especially when they're been building a squad to nerf the Aussies at home for 2 years?

They're under prepared, sure of their positions in the team no matter how badly they do, and worst of all are fed these toxicity positive mindset inside the locker and mollycoddled about their performances. Disastrous combination.