Bazball didn’t travel well
England and Bazball were sent packing by a superior and more disciplined opponent.
Travel to India has gotten better, no doubt; however, challenges remain, especially for first-timers. Bazball is just that—a rookie, a fledging talent still to be shaped to its final form. What that final state is—who knows, and should we care? This is the burning question—or the frigid one.
I'm still unsure whether the proponents outnumber the critics. As an entity, Bazball remains annoyingly evasive—promising the world and delivering an atlas. The proponents contradict themselves as often as Donald Trump tells fibs. The antagonists cry shame, saying their game is corrupted, but then they laud when it works.
An English journalist described Joe Root's century in Ranchi as "an excellent Bazball innings." Root took 219 balls to reach his 31st Test century; his Test career strike rate (SR) is 56.52, and the Ranchi innings SR was 55.70. How in Trump's name can that be "an excellent Bazball innings?" Here's the issue: Bazball resembles a late-night fish supper; devil you do, devil you don't.
The journalist was Lawrence Booth, editor of the Wisden Almanack, so he is no slouch in cricket writing circles. Unfortunately, Booth is hooked on the Bazball phenomenon, which he describes as "a Test Cricket Revolution". Of course, he does; he recently co-published a book on the subject!
SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.
England lost four of the five Tests played and had no claim on the one they won—fortunately, it was a "heist in Hyderabad."
This was a tour without consequences for England—merely an obligation or commitment they were compelled to honour. The bowling consisted of four pacers and four spinners. Jack Leach aside, the spinners totalled one Test appearance collectively. And, after Leach limped back to his cabbage patch with a wonky knee, England passed on calling for a spin replacement, condemning Joe Root to unnecessary bowling—robbing Peter to pay Paul. But, hey, who cares anyway?
Of the four pacers, one wasn't seen; I assume Gus Atkinson was there to keep his fellow rookie, Bazball, company. Evergreen, Jimmy Anderson, trundled the most pace overs (110)—note: Root bowled more overs than Anderson. Mark Wood bowled 77 overs in three Tests for four wickets (they all came in one innings). Outright pace no longer worries India's top order in any conditions; they relish pace on the ball at home. This is one of the reasons this set of five surfaces was very different from the Australian series. As said, Atkinson didn't play, and Ollie Robinson was trusted once—who could blame England—bowling just 13 unproductive overs.
Jimmy Anderson: The silence surrounding Anderson's presence on this team is alarming but in line with its mantra. Anderson no longer bowls when it doesn't suit; his batting has disappeared, and the fielding looks arduous. That aside, he remains a class bowler when holding the winning cards. This is another example of the 'fuck-you’ message from this England team.
Left-arm twirler Tom Hartley, depicted as "an English war poet", manfully toed the company line. Asked to do pretty much everything by his captain, Hartley returned 250 overs, 22 wickets, an acceptable economy rate of 3.17—given some of the ludicrous fields he bowled to, and recorded a best of seven for 62. All this while Jack Leach was tending to his Somerset garden.
The rest of the spin was speculative. You hope Rehan Ahmed and Shoaib Bashir will be better for the experience. Bashir was either trusted or forced to bowl lengthy spells late in the series: 31, 24, 18 and 17 (twice). As they do, England talked up their young spinners, but, realistically, they were average, Hartley apart. Ball-tracking backs this subjective viewpoint; they don't spin the ball as hard as India's spinners. Their drift and drop are also lacking, and their length control needs work.
This might be a good time to share a quote from Baz McCullum on Bazball—he doesn't like the term—more on his Test coaching strategy:
'Take wickets. We need 20 to win a Test match. With the bat absorb pressure, identify when the time has come to put pressure back on the opposition, be brave enough to pull the trigger. In the field, it is about chasing the ball hard to the boundaries. Three simple philosophies.'
So, the first two sentences: take 20 wickets. England showed no noticeable intent to do this. First innings, maybe; second innings, no. They were rather waiting for a declaration or an invitation to chase down an insurmountable total. In Ranchi, England had the opportunity to take 20 wickets and win the Test. Ben Stokes chose defence at 5-120 with 70 runs in the bank.
India are good, very good, even when they are stretched by injuries to key players. But did England really stretch themselves in this series? As has been the case under McCullum and Stokes, they choose a lane and stick to it, irrespective of what's on the road ahead.
I will come back to the batting in this series later. Yashasvi Jaiswal, Shubman Gill, Zak Crawley, Rohit Sharma, Dhruv Chand Jurel, Ben Duckett—there is plenty to talk about.
Do I sound like a deserter? Maybe I am.
I say, just let Bazball be what it is—who knows—and don't make excuses for it. Granted, it was a rookie in India and seemed to shy away when the heat came. I point the blame at its handlers; more care needs to be taken, in my opinion.
And, to quote a prominent Australian cricket person on the subject, "They're off their fucking heads!"—that's the handlers.
As always, than you for being here.
Good stuff again Nick. Who was that wise Australian?