Discussing Bazball approach in Test Cricket

[Lillian Thomson]

It’s quite interesting (well almost) that the only two batters who ever looked genuine Test class were Stokes and Root. While players with what appears to be limited techniques are scoring heavily and quickly, the two main men have stalled a bit. Stokes has just been downright reckless and Root looks like he wants to be unnecessarily maverick.

 

[Daemon]

If Bazball succeeds , will that mean end of players like Purara, Dravid, Steve Waugh , Chanderpaul, Border ?

Pujara would benefit (at times) from such an approach imo, when he starts scoring freely he’s a different beast

 

[Ashes81]

Whatever you think about England's new approach, we've won 8 out of 9 tests with Stokes in charge.

They've come against 4 different countries as well. So far NZ, India, S Africa and now Pakistan have had no answer.

And when you consider the state we were in prior to McCullum and Stokes taking the helm, it's been one heck of a turn round.

Now that doesn't mean, we'll beat NZ and the Aussies next year but we're in a massively better place to do so than we were under Root.

 

[SteveNZ]

this is the correct take.

i believe that @Line and Length said something quite similar in the match thread which was equally correct

It is the correct take...but it takes a bold team, and leaders, to actually not only acknowledge that, but to follow through and do it. You absolutely open yourself up to failing miserably, or succeeding incredibly as England have with 8 wins from 9. I'll put a caveat on that in saying that England came from so far in the depths, have a coach who isn't afraid of failure (because it's who he is, and the fact he doesn't 'need' this job) and a captain of a similar mindset, that it works. A lot of teams aren't as bold because they don't have those factors.

If Bazball succeeds , will that mean end of players like Purara, Dravid, Steve Waugh , Chanderpaul, Border ?

Nup, for the reasons I said above. This approach won't work for everyone, it won't work against everyone (no one is predicting this England side will touch Australia next year) and it may not work for an extended period of time. The classic, consistent Test players will always have a place

 

[Ashes81]

It is the correct take...but it takes a bold team, and leaders, to actually not only acknowledge that, but to follow through and do it. You absolutely open yourself up to failing miserably, or succeeding incredibly as England have with 8 wins from 9. I'll put a caveat on that in saying that England came from so far in the depths, have a coach who isn't afraid of failure (because it's who he is, and the fact he doesn't 'need' this job) and a captain of a similar mindset, that it works. A lot of teams aren't as bold because they don't have those factors.



Nup, for the reasons I said above. This approach won't work for everyone, it won't work against everyone (no one is predicting this England side will touch Australia next year) and it may not work for an extended period of time. The classic, consistent Test players will always have a place

I think England's new approach will work against all teams.

By that I don't mean that we'll beat every team at home and away - that's highly unlikely.

What I mean is that it will give us the best chance of success. We may well get beat in the Ashes next Summer or away to NZ but that doesn't mean the approach we've taken is wrong.

My view is we will be more successful under this approach than we would have been if we'd not had McCullum and Stokes in charge.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think England's new approach will work against all teams.

By that I don't mean that we'll beat every team at home and away - that's highly unlikely.

What I mean is that it will give us the best chance of success. We may well get beat in the Ashes next Summer or away to NZ but that doesn't mean the approach we've taken is wrong.

My view is we will be more successful under this approach than we would have been if we'd not had McCullum and Stokes in charge.

I agree with most of this sentiment. I don't think it'll work against all teams, I certainly don't think England has a hope in hell of beating Australia unless they bowl out of their skins, whether that's home or away (happy to be proven wrong). And this approach would be disastrous in India (although no worse than their last tour, albeit they won a game on Root's bat). I think England will beat us down here, because our bowling line-up is likely to be well below-par, and it'll be flat as **** at the Mount. But no approach can paper over a lack of technique and skill in trying conditions and against high quality opposition. A dominant England Test side is a lot further off than that.

I just love the approach because it says we want to win the next Test match and nothing else. We want to entertain, because the product doesn't exist without fans. We want Test cricket to be loved and preserved. We want to - as much as possible - eliminate the fear of failure and empower guys to back their skills without worrying they'll get out or be dropped. And we don't care about the Ashes, because that's not our next Test match. We'll worry about that mid next year.

I think Brendon took some of his approach out of the 2014 3rd Test v Pakistan in the wake of Phil Hughes' horrible passing. That Test was devoid of fear, because no one cared to play. We scored 690 at nigh on 5 an over, having struggled in the first two Tests. They saw what a lack of fear could do to the way you played. No doubt he's built that way anyway, but I reckon that Test - as horrible as it was and probably could have been cancelled - paved the way for what he did subsequently. England seem to be playing that way now.

 

[Gnske]

The irony of course is that it takes a man who hails from the most neutered and placid country in the world that isn't Canada to give any life to the desolate tradition that is English cricket circa. 2022.

I miss Peter Moores, those were good years

 

[Ashes81]

I agree with most of this sentiment. I don't think it'll work against all teams, I certainly don't think England has a hope in hell of beating Australia unless they bowl out of their skins, whether that's home or away (happy to be proven wrong). And this approach would be disastrous in India (although no worse than their last tour, albeit they won a game on Root's bat). I think England will beat us down here, because our bowling line-up is likely to be well below-par, and it'll be flat as **** at the Mount. But no approach can paper over a lack of technique and skill in trying conditions and against high quality opposition. A dominant England Test side is a lot further off than that.

I just love the approach because it says we want to win the next Test match and nothing else. We want to entertain, because the product doesn't exist without fans. We want Test cricket to be loved and preserved. We want to - as much as possible - eliminate the fear of failure and empower guys to back their skills without worrying they'll get out or be dropped. And we don't care about the Ashes, because that's not our next Test match. We'll worry about that mid next year.

I think Brendon took some of his approach out of the 2014 3rd Test v Pakistan in the wake of Phil Hughes' horrible passing. That Test was devoid of fear, because no one cared to play. We scored 690 at nigh on 5 an over, having struggled in the first two Tests. They saw what a lack of fear could do to the way you played. No doubt he's built that way anyway, but I reckon that Test - as horrible as it was and probably could have been cancelled - paved the way for what he did subsequently. England seem to be playing that way now.

You make some very valid points.

I loved NZs approach when McCullum was captain. The 2015 series in England was a taste of things to come as NZ scored at a really fast rate in a tied series. It was such an enjoyable series to watch.

His approach won't turn sub standard players into world beaters - he's not a magician but he obviously installs massive confidence into his teams and enables them to play to their full potential.

The players have really bought into what he and Stokes are trying to do - they're clearly really enjoying their cricket.

I'm not so sure we'll beat NZ in the up coming series - the recent series in England was much closer than the scoreline suggests.

As for the Ashes, it'll be tough for us - Australia are the better side but at home they've not beat us since 2001 and the gap between the sides is narrowing.

 

[SteveNZ]

You make some very valid points.

I loved NZs approach when McCullum was captain. The 2015 series in England was a taste of things to come as NZ scored at a really fast rate in a tied series. It was such an enjoyable series to watch.

His approach won't turn sub standard players into world beaters - he's not a magician but he obviously installs massive confidence into his teams and enables them to play to their full potential.

The players have really bought into what he and Stokes are trying to do - they're clearly really enjoying their cricket.

I'm not so sure we'll beat NZ in the up coming series - the recent series in England was much closer than the scoreline suggests.

As for the Ashes, it'll be tough for us - Australia are the better side but at home they've not beat us since 2001 and the gap between the sides is narrowing.

The 2015 series is a really interesting case study of Brendon as a leader. We should have won that series 2-0. In the Lord's Test, we were 403-3 with him at the crease, he slogged out, we were 523 all out when we should've scored 600 and batted England out of the Test, and we ended up losing by 120 - the nadir in that Test being Trent Boult ramping one straight to deep third man when we were trying to bat out time. The all or nothing approach does need to be tempered at times, or it can go horribly wrong. That's going to happen to England at some stage.

I think there's a lot to be said for enjoying their cricket. You spend so much time away from home and in environments that might seem enjoyable, but become hugely monotonous. I think the split Test/limited overs coach thing is the model going forward, too. Different voices, taking workload off coaches/allowing the best ones to do IPLs etc plus international sides, specific skill sets etc.

True on the home advantage, the Ashes will probably be much closer than I gave credit for. I just don't think England will score many runs. But I would wager a fair amount of money that England will win in NZ, they'll love the conditions here and our Test side is at a low ebb.

 

[Ashes81]

The 2015 series is a really interesting case study of Brendon as a leader. We should have won that series 2-0. In the Lord's Test, we were 403-3 with him at the crease, he slogged out, we were 523 all out when we should've scored 600 and batted England out of the Test, and we ended up losing by 120 - the nadir in that Test being Trent Boult ramping one straight to deep third man when we were trying to bat out time. The all or nothing approach does need to be tempered at times, or it can go horribly wrong. That's going to happen to England at some stage.

I think there's a lot to be said for enjoying their cricket. You spend so much time away from home and in environments that might seem enjoyable, but become hugely monotonous. I think the split Test/limited overs coach thing is the model going forward, too. Different voices, taking workload off coaches/allowing the best ones to do IPLs etc plus international sides, specific skill sets etc.

True on the home advantage, the Ashes will probably be much closer than I gave credit for. I just don't think England will score many runs. But I would wager a fair amount of money that England will win in NZ, they'll love the conditions here and our Test side is at a low ebb.

Agree totally about the 2015 series, NZ should have won both tests and McCullum was pretty gung ho in his approach.

I wasn't a fan of Bazball at first and still have some reservations. You don't have to attack for the whole 5 days, there are times when you have to consolidate your position. Also sometimes our fields are overly aggressive and attacking.

We nearly come unstuck in the last Pakistan test, a game we largely dominated, by not scoring enough in our 2nd innings.

I'm sure there will be more similar occasions in the future and we will no doubt lose some matches we shouldn't.

But it's hard to argue with the stats. We'd won 1 out of our last 17 tests before the McCullum/Stokes partnership took the helm and 8 out of 9 since.

 

[AndrewB]

The 1 win in 17 so often mentioned is a fairly precise cutoff; England won 9 out of 12 before that.

 

[Ashes81]

The 1 win in 17 so often mentioned is a fairly precise cutoff; England won 9 out of 12 before that.

Fair point but the general point stands that we've improved our results significantly since McCullum and Stokes were appointed.

 

[Coronis]

Isn’t 9 tests for England like 3 months?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isn’t 9 tests for England like 3 months?

No they play 9 Tests about every 4 weeks

 

[Ashes81]

Isn’t 9 tests for England like 3 months?

Since June this year we've beaten
NZ 3-0
India 1-0
SA 2-1
Pakistan 2-0

 

[Coronis]

Since June this year we've beaten
NZ 3-0
India 1-0
SA 2-1
Pakistan 2-0

Exactly…. 6 months and you’ve had 10 tests scheduled

 

[Tom Flint]

Exactly…. 6 months and you’ve had 10 tests scheduled

Our supporters care enough about the game to fill out our test venues.

 

[Ashes81]

Exactly…. 6 months and you’ve had 10 tests scheduled

The India test was rescheduled from last season when it was postponed due to Covid.

Not sure what your point is though mate - are you saying that because Stokes and McCullum have only been in charge since June, it devalues their achievements so far.

 

[Coronis]

The India test was rescheduled from last season when it was postponed due to Covid.

Not sure what your point is though mate - are you saying that because Stokes and McCullum have only been in charge since June, it devalues their achievements so far.

I mean 6 months is a very short span to judge the value of a captain and a coach in cricket, no?

 

[Ashes81]

I mean 6 months is a very short span to judge the value of a captain and a coach in cricket, no?

Yes and no

It's no time at all and most of the tests we've played have been at home.

However, we have played 9 tests in those 6 months and against 4 different teams.

The ultimate tests are still to come, particularly the Ashes and India away.

It's wrong but Ashes series do tend to define careers for England players and coaches.

Despite Australia generally being a better team than us, it's 20 years since we've lost a series to them in England.

So Stokes & McCullum need to keep that run going and then make a decent fist of it when we play India and Australia away from home.

It's early days of course but the start for the new regime could hardly have gone much better.