If you don't worship Bazball then you know nothing about cricket - just ask anyone from England's deluded cult

You are either with Bazball or you’re against it. Most cults operate in that manner. Cricket was invented in England and the way their team has been acting recently, they’re acting like they own the sport. 

They score quicker than usual and their captain tries a few unorthodox field tactics which occasionally come off. 

In the words of perhaps England’s finest export since the invention of cricket, Austin Powers, “whoopity-doo, Basil”.

When the Bazball approach pays off, if you are not fawning over Ben Stokes’ tactical genius then you clearly haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid which has refreshed Test cricket. 

The level of hubris and lack of humility emanating from the England camp as the Ashes series has progressed has been embarrassing on many levels. 

England captain Ben Stokes after day five of the Test at Old Trafford. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

Stokes has been leading on that front with some of his petulant responses to decent questions following the fourth Test ending in a draw due to rain washing away nearly all the last two days with his team in a dominant, but not invincible, position. 

When former England captain Mike Atherton quite reasonably asked Stokes on Sunday if he had any lingering regrets about the narrow first Test at Edgbaston, the current skipper retorted with a blunt “no”, showing little to no respect to someone who knows all about the pressure of the role.

The contentious decision when he declared prematurely late on day one should at least be worth a second glance, particularly after losing the match, but not so for Stokes. 

A journalist a short time later in the post-match media conference took a similar tack. He said it was obviously frustrating that England’s fourth Test plans were ruined by rain but asked whether it was a bigger disappointment that they went 2-0 down in the series and left themselves such a big job to win the final three games. 

Seemed a reasonable enough assertion but it was met with “no, not really” and an awkward half-smile, half-grimace.

How dare anyone question England for actually losing games or bring up the fact that they contributed to their precarious position which was eventually stymied by weather despite outplaying Australia at Old Trafford. 

Stokes seems to think this latest iteration of the English Test side has somehow reached historic proportions. 

“As much as I would love to be an Ashes-winning captain, I want this team to be a legacy team. We’ve become a team that will live long in the memories of those who have watched us.”

Yeah right. He doesn’t mind failing in his mission to regain the Ashes because they’ve created some sort of self-declared “legacy team”. 

There’s precious few teams in Test cricket history that truly left a lasting legacy. Sides like Sir Donald Bradman’s 1948 Invincibles, the West Indies’ Calypso Kings of the 1980s and early ‘90s and the Australians under Steve Waugh at the turn of the century who won 16 straight matches. 

This England side has played good cricket for 12 months and then fallen short of the final hurdle when they’ve come up against the world champs. They’re good, not great. The legacy they’re leaving behind right now is one for having an ego that outweighs their results. 

If winning and losing is not so important, why have they carried on so much both in the jubilant sense after their sole victory and the petulant manner after they lost the chance to regain the Ashes due to the fourth Test washout?

“I’m never going to look back and question anything that we did,” Stokes dribbled on. 

There’s a difference between having no regrets and not considering the possibility that you may have made mistakes along the way. 

Failing to even countenance the possibility that they pulled the wrong lever here or there with decisions like declarations, team selections or tactics means you won’t learn when they backfire. 

They’ve done extremely well to revive the barely beating corpse of a team that was null and voided 4-0 in Australia 18 months ago but they haven’t reinvented the cricketing wheel. 

After blasting through the first two Tests, often shooting themselves in the foot in the process, they’ve been more measured with their batting, more disciplined with their bowling (especially no-balls) and fielded slightly better in the past two Tests to turn the tide on Australia. 

Bazball is all about having full faith in messiah Brendon McCullum’s coaching methods. 

Or as the movementarians in The Simpsons chanted, “The leader is good, the leader is great, we surrender our will, as of this date.”

England don’t need a Plan B when they have absolute belief that their method is not only the correct way to play but the only way. 

“I think anyone who questions the declaration doesn’t understand the game as well as we do,” was Stokes’ riposte to anyone who dared question whether they batted on too late in Manchester when anyone with access to a weather app could have told him the rain was coming from across the Irish Sea at a great rate of knots. 

There was an early pointer to the foolhardiness of devout faith in Bazball early in the series when Kevin Pietersen, formerly and perhaps formally known as “Dumb Slog Millionaire”, was waxing lyrical about Joe Root “owning the game” to the point where “this lot were scratching their heads going what do we do” to Ricky Ponting in a pitchside commentary chat during the first Test. 

Ponting delivered his most cutting sledge since his playing days when he slapped Pietersen down with “calm down, he only scored 40”. 

Perspective is crucial in cricket, particularly matches of the five-day variety, and the reality is that Root entertained the crowd that day with his 46 off 55 with five boundaries and a six. 

However, he also cost his team dearly, possibly the match, by being too aggressive in charging down the wicket to Nathan Lyon, getting stumped at a critical stage of the second innings when a longer stay at the crease would have batted Australia out of the game. 

The epitome of a classical English batter, that was the first time he’d been stumped in his Test career. He doesn’t need to charge down the wicket or produce ramp shots to fit into the Bazball psyche – after 11,000-plus runs, his methods have stood the test of time.

In a vacuum, Stokes’ decisions to declare early at Birmingham and then perhaps too late at Manchester are not and were not major blunders, and he’s well within his rights to stick to his guns. 

Former US President George W Bush also used to get in strife for his ill-conceived declarations, such as “you’re with us or against us” during his stage-managed war on terror. 

And it’s that kind of siege mentality rationale that has been permeating from the England camp of late that has left plenty of fans questioning the cult of Bazball. 

Harry Brook. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

Harry Brook basically claimed without a modicum of modesty that England are singlehandedly reviving Test cricket.

“I feel like we’re going to be a team to be remembered. We’re bringing different crowds to watch the game, more people are getting into Test cricket. We’re almost trying to get it back alive again. I think we’ve done a decent job of that in the last 12 months and it’s been exciting to watch. It’s definitely been exciting to play in.”

He wasn’t a part of that squad but they almost destroyed interest in the Ashes in the last series with their woeful efforts so the least they should have done was to pull their socks up since then.

England should keep playing attacking cricket to continue their rapid metamorphosis from rabble to respectable. 

But a bit of perspective and self reflection wouldn’t go astray. 

Perhaps then they will be able to see that they’re on the right track but are still a long way from being perfect, or a “legacy team” or whatever other spin they want to impart to cover up the fact that they have now failed for the fourth straight series to get their hands on the Ashes urn.