Bazball begins!
England's new approach has pushed the mighty Australians and helped deliver a test series for the ages, but has it really "saved" test cricket?
The built-up
A set of English and Australian journalists and fans consider the Ashes the most important tour of their calendar. However, if you look closely, the Ashes have been far from the most competitive series this century. Every casual fan will remind you about Ashes 2005 and how close and dramatic that series was, but since then the Ashes have mostly been won by the home team. The only exception to this was England’s 3-1 win in 2010/11 with an Australian team under transition (Steve Smith was batting at 7 then).
Since 2015, Australia has competed well in England. In fact, they should have won in 2019 if not for some unforced errors (poor reviews and missed run-out), since they were undoubtedly the better side. England since their reinvention under coach Brendon McCullum had a record of 11 wins and 2 losses, while the Australian team had all their bases covered. This was set up to be a cracking series and it’s certainly delivered on that promise.
The batting
England’s batting style was predictable. This team has been taking on the bowlers (like a ODI/T20I) for about a year now starting with New Zealand’s tour of England last summer. The approach was borne out of neccessity, due to a combination of their dismal returns in test cricket and of course the kind of strokemakers they have been producing in domestic cricket. They have also been helped with some of the flat tracks produced by Pakistan.
However, what’s been interesting is how committed every batter has been to this approach. Joe Root, as an example, was scoring a LOT of runs even prior to this, but he has been seen trying to reverse sweep the first ball of a morning in the last year or so. The plan to play more attacking cricket and shots was the overall strategy, but the cornerstone of this was the need to alter where they meet the ball. Here’s Zak Crawley walking down the pitch on one of the several occasions in this series.
The other opener Ben Duckett has done the same from time to time, while others like Harry Brook have not been afraid to move out of the line and slog the ball. The slowest English batters this series have been Ben Stokes and Moeen Ali scoring at a strike rate of 65, most others have been in the 70s, while Zak Crawley’s has been finished the series with 480 runs at a ridiculous 89 runs per 100 balls.
This has ensured that Australia’s bowlers have had a very tough time settling into their rhytm. Skipper Pat Cummins, Josh Hazlewood and Scott Boland are all known for their impecible consistency in line and length. England has used “predictability” and the habit of moving around the batting crease to throw off their lines and lengths. Mitchell Starc has bowled some solid spells and is currently the highest wicket taker for the series, although he too has gone at just under 5 runs an over.
Setting fields to this batting strategy has also been proved to be quite tough. Throughout the series, casual fans have questioned why Australia has gone with a fielder in the deep right from the beginning. In the 5th test, when England came out to bat the 2nd time, Australia did away with this position and still it backfired. There’s little doubt that other teams that will face this English team in the future will also struggle in this regard.
The bowling
England’s approach of taking more chances with the bat has meant their innings have generally been short. But the English team have been happy with scoring 300 in less than a full day rather than trying to fight it out over 4-5 sessions and not getting anywhere. And to make it easier to execute this strategy, English curators have rolled out pitches flatter than the usual (discounting last summer when the Duke ball had a quality issue).
While this helps their batters, this has certainly limited the role of England’s seam bowlers. The first test was a prime example of this. Australia’s chase lasted 93 overs and veteran Jimmy Anderson, who turns 41 today, did not bowl after the 56th over. In fact, he himself admitted that bowling on such pitches is very challenging in a statement to the Telegraph.
There’s little doubt on the quality of Anderson but considering his fitness concerns as well as his limitations in conditions that don’t suit him, England should have moved on from Anderson. Instead, Chris Woakes should have been England’s first pick. Time and again, he has shown to proved to be very effective at home as he has shown in the 3 tests he has played in this series.
After promising to be working on an outswinger for Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschange, Stuart Broad has done well this series. It was expected that he will trouble David Warner, who in recent years, has been found wanting against Broad, but he has also picked Labuschange and Smith two times each. And yet, with captain Ben Stokes struggling with knee issues, at the end of the 2nd test, it was very hard to see how England would come back and take 20 wickets in 3 consecutive tests.
And that’s when Mark Wood came in. Wood is an exciting bowler to watch but his record in England justified him not getting selected in the first two tests. By the time the 3rd one came around, England had to go with Wood and he has been brilliant with the ball while also producing useful cameos with bat, particularly in the 3rd test.
Prior to the series, many had questioned whether England’s batting approach would work against the quality of the Australian attack. The more important question was always going to be whether England can consistently take 20 wickets. And Chris Woakes and Mark Wood have picked key top order wickets (such as in-form Usman Khawaja) at the rate of a wicket every 38 balls.
Essentially, Zak Crawley, an opener with an average of 30, and two bowlers who weren’t even picked for the first 2 matches have managed to flip the series on it’s head. If this series was played all over again 10 times, the chance of these 3 emerging as the stars of England’s fightback would be pretty slim.
So has Bazball worked?
From the start of the pandemic until the June 2022, when England started employing the Bazball approach, England had 4-4 record at tests at home, and 3-8 away from home. Since then, they have won 12, lost 4 matches (including one by 1 run). Of course, only 5 off these 18 tests were away from home and it certainly played in England’s favor that Pakistan prepared flat batting tracks.
It’s worth acknowledging that England have had a lot of luck during this period and even in this Ashes. They won 4 out of the 5 tosses in the series, received the better of the conditions for most part of the series and been helped by the injury to Australia’s key spinner Nathan Lyon. Top cricket teams generally catch 85% of the chances they get. In the 5th test, Australia dropped 5 off the 10 catches they got on Day 1.
Looking past the number, it’s well accepted that Pat Cummins is the most consistent fast bowler in Test cricket today. He has barely had a bad Test since the pandemic. All of the factors mentioned above have allowed England to get moments (although brief ones) in this Ashes where the Australian skipper has been off color. Just like the Australian bowlers, when England go to India their batting will challenge the likes of R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja.
The success of this English side in India will depend on whether the bowling line-up can challenge the Indian batters and take 20 wickets consistently in unfamiliar conditions. England may go on to lose that series, in fact, there’s a small chance they may lose the ongoing 5th test as well. But the fact that they have gone from a side that wasn’t competing in test cricket, to one that’s challenging the best proves the method to their madness is already working.
Has Bazball saved Test cricket?
While this doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has follows English cricket and the English media, the amount of nonsense spewed by some in the English cricket fraternity has been quite nauseating (without even considering the whole “Spirit of Cricket” thing).
Various members of the ECB as well as the English media have claimed that England’s approach to cricket has brought back Test cricket. Usually it’s easy to ignore these claims, but some members of the teams have started to participate in this jargon as well, making it even worse.
Here’s a recent statement by youngster Harry Brook after the 4th test was washed out:
'We’re not focused on winning as a side, we’re focused on making people enjoy watching and bringing Test cricket alive again...
All teams look to put a positive spin on things and that’s understandable. To go on and claim they are looking to do something more important than the game is quite laugable.
If England’s performances (or even their chances) had gone down with this approach, neither the ECB nor the fans would be ok with the “making people enjoy Test cricket” jargon. Also, was test cricket really in trouble back in 2021 when India went to England? All the stadiums were sold out and the TV ratings were high as well.
The truth is that test cricket has been the healthiest in the last 5-6 years with pitches that have made for exciting cricket and bowling attacks with immense depth. The bigger problem around this format is the lack of monetary funds to support longer series outside of the big 3 (Australia, England and India). This is why South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand have all changed their home series to 2-match series in recent years. And Bazball does nothing to change that.
glad to see someone saying how it is..
has Bazzball helped England - sure!
has Bazzball saved Test cricket - don't stretch it.
but, I don't know how long this can last. Leaving the ball is still an essential part of batting in tests, which England didn't do very well.