How long can Bazball last?

[Johan]

Its not that serious tbh, England was completely winning the match till Pat Cummins played the knock of his life, that don't mean England needs to completely change their style of play which is much better then Rootball was.

 

[smash84]

It's going to fail when Eng come up against Australia (as we are going to see now). Bazball is aggressive cricket and requires a lot of mental toughness (which this England side does have) to pull off (some mind games as well by putting the opposition on the backfoot with media talk). But Australia are generally the toughest side in terms of mental toughness and England will find it hard to win mind games against them.

So, bazball is coming to an end, at least for this series.

Told you so

 

[andruid]

It will be tempered some as the experience levels of this playing group grows and the oldies get phased out for new blood. It will not be abandoned for some years, as the current pipeline of English talent need to have that front foot aggression to hack it i test cricket.

 

[Bijed]

If you'll excuse the somewhat pretentious choice of wording, I think it will leave a permanent 'legacy' on test cricket. What it's shown, whether it was actually part of a thought process or just something that opting to play hyper-aggresively showed up, is that, from a batting perspective, in particular conditions, "percentage" batting can be far more attacking than conventional wisdom might have suggested. I'm not saying scoring 500 in (a shortened!) day will become anything like commonplace, but I do expect even good-but-not-top-tier bowling attacks to be properly put to the sword in good batting conditions more often, where previously a batting side might have been content with scoring merely briskly without losing wickets

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, I agree. You used legacy right I reckon, even though that might feel pretentious. It will (IMO) change, to a degree, the way Test cricket is played. Teams will look at their approach and mostly whether a more aggressive mode can benefit them, but I also believe as stewards of the game they will feel some responsibility to maximise results and the entertainment factor.

A lot of humanity and what we do as humans acts as a pendulum, and I believe that's what England's approach is. It'll swing too far forward, get readjusted until a suitable middle ground of how to attack and still win Tests is found. You may find declaring 80 overs in on day 1 with a world batsman set on 110 is a swing too far forward, for example. That shooting your mouth off in the media (although it makes for great entertainment) is, too. Or at least against some teams.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It'll swing too far forward, get readjusted until a suitable middle ground of how to attack and still win Tests is found. You may find declaring 80 overs in on day 1 with a world batsman set on 110 is a swing too far forward, for example. That shooting your mouth off in the media (although it makes for great entertainment) is, too. Or at least against some teams.

That sounds much like what Steve Waugh's Australians did. Batted aggressively but not stupidly. Almost never drew games unless they were heavily rain-affected, and would gift an overmatched opposition with a chance to try and force a result if necessary.

Easier to do when you've got Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath in your side though. Takes more balls to attempt it with an average team

 

[Daemon]

This is definitely the way to go for some of the more limited players in the side like the openers and Brook.

Root, Bairstow and Stokes just have to be a bit more controlled - Bairstow in particular has shown that he can weather out good bowling before upping the ante. Was good to see Stokes do it as well.

It’ll hopefully settle into something less frantic and just an aggressive way to play.

 

[Line and Length]

You make good points @Daemon . The concept of attacking, aggressive cricket is nothing new, but it needs to be tempered according to each situation.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This is definitely the way to go for some of the more limited players in the side like the openers and Brook.

Root, Bairstow and Stokes just have to be a bit more controlled - Bairstow in particular has shown that he can weather out good bowling before upping the ante. Was good to see Stokes do it as well.

It’ll hopefully settle into something less frantic and just an aggressive way to play.

This is the most logical thing I've ever heard on England's new philosophy. It's not rocket science. A guy with over 11K runs in test cricket falls prey to a 'trap', of which a few of his blokes have already succumbed to...

It's ****ing ridiculous.

 

[Athlai]

This is definitely the way to go for some of the more limited players in the side like the openers and Brook.

Root, Bairstow and Stokes just have to be a bit more controlled - Bairstow in particular has shown that he can weather out good bowling before upping the ante. Was good to see Stokes do it as well.

It’ll hopefully settle into something less frantic and just an aggressive way to play.

I don't think it will really work without it being a "team" philosophy. If you reduce it back down to individual players strengths and weaknesses, you give the fielding team exactly the same opportunity to retain control of the game as they always did.

That said, I don't think it'll last. And in 2 summers will just be remembered as an odd period of English cricketing history.

 

[SteveNZ]

That sounds much like what Steve Waugh's Australians did. Batted aggressively but not stupidly. Almost never drew games unless they were heavily rain-affected, and would gift an overmatched opposition with a chance to try and force a result if necessary.

Easier to do when you've got Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath in your side though. Takes more balls to attempt it with an average team

Yep, that's true. I don't think that caught on because those guys were considered cricketing gods, no one thought the approach would catch on. Whilst Greatbatch, Jaysuriya, Kaluwitharana, their ODI gung-ho style was considered doable. As will it be with this England side.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is definitely the way to go for some of the more limited players in the side like the openers and Brook.

Root, Bairstow and Stokes just have to be a bit more controlled - Bairstow in particular has shown that he can weather out good bowling before upping the ante. Was good to see Stokes do it as well.

It’ll hopefully settle into something less frantic and just an aggressive way to play.

I thought this from the start - not as much with Bairstow, but certainly Root and Stokes. To me, Root has underperformed under Baz, which is a bit crazy to say given he averages 62. But there are a tremendous amount of failures for a guy who's probably the best bat in the world when it does it properly. Joe Root reverse lapping a guy like Scott Boland bowling up and down is not the best use of ability. Same with Stokes, yes he's just played an out of this world knock going at the attack, but his last 18 months have been underperforming, too.

England would probably say they're happy to have guys go big when they're on and miss out a bit more regularly around this, in the knowledge others around them will contribute other times. That's OK against an average side like NZ, but hasn't held up this series.

 

[Daemon]

I don't think it will really work without it being a "team" philosophy. If you reduce it back down to individual players strengths and weaknesses, you give the fielding team exactly the same opportunity to retain control of the game as they always did.

This is also true, and tbf there is merit in programming the team and players to play in one particular way so they eliminate the need to think and overthink and get tangled up in their own minds as can be so common in cricket.

But it’s test cricket and you’ll never be the best unless you can adapt. So for as long as they don’t have more Roots, this approach could be better than whatever the **** it is they were doing before.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't think it will really work without it being a "team" philosophy. If you reduce it back down to individual players strengths and weaknesses, you give the fielding team exactly the same opportunity to retain control of the game as they always did.

That said, I don't think it'll last. And in 2 summers will just be remembered as an odd period of English cricketing history.

I think it can still be a team philosophy with exceptions. You pick a side with a plan to be aggressive as a rule, to take the game to the opposition...but you can still hedge those bets with someone like a Root or someone in the middle order who can be positive but equally can adapt to match situations and play tougher Test innings. I think the philosophy probably has to revolve around two attacking openers, otherwise as you say the fielding side can take control early and you're not setting an attacking tone. However, I still see the ability to let Root play the way that suits him best, which to me isn't happening now. And maybe Ben Foakes at 7 is a good foil for that, too.

At the moment, England are all in on a single investment strategy that goes spectacularly in a bull market, but can go just as badly wrong when faced with a tough market like the Ashes are. I think they'd be better off hedging on being able to rely on 1-2 guys like Root, Stokes, Foakes (last one probably not a great example, but I mean the approach) to be able to mix it up as required.

 

[number11]

It will work on flat decks against weaker attacks/teams.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Everything works against weaker teams, that's why they're weaker teams

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

this approach could be better than whatever the **** it is they were doing before

Losing, mostly.

 

[Owzat]

50-60 overs max.....

 

[number11]

It will work against bad attacks or on roads. May come unstuck against better line-ups or in tougher conditions.