'Nothing but a horses-for-courses strategy': Why England had to turn to Bazball because of its player pool

By Tsat / Roar Guru

Towards the end of the final innings at Dharamshala, Ravindra Jadeja clean-bowled Shoaib Bashir.

However, not realising what happened, Bashir signalled for a review. Everyone around him, including his teammate Joe Root, laughed at this comical scene.

To many cricket viewers, that scene summed up the term “Bazball,” which is a comically defiant mental state when the writing is on the wall.

But is this what Bazball was meant to be all along? My answer is an emphatic no.

Every cricket board and management in the world would love to be able to select a squad from a bunch of super-talented players, like the West Indies or Australia had during their roaring days.

However, talent production within a country has a cycle, and it is not often that great players come in a bunch like they did for West Indies in the 70s and 80s and Australia in the 90s.

Considering this reality of vagaries in talent availability, team managements design their playing strategy according to the available bunch.

In 2022, Brendon McCullum, Ben Stokes and Robert Key had many Test match players, who were flawed in many aspects – barring the obvious star players like Jimmy Anderson, Ben Stokes, and Joe Root.

The County system was not producing batters like Alastair Cook; it was producing strokeless wonders like Dom Sibley.

With this as their resource availability, the trio had to decide on the best strategy to win in test cricket in the short term.

While they struggled in Test cricket, the English were acing white ball cricket. The white ball team was built with uninhibited hitters for batting and good all-rounders for bowling.

The entire English cricket system adjusted to this need and was producing players who fit these requirements.

So, rather than fighting the system, the trio decided to fit their test strategy too based on the players being produced by the newly calibrated system.

Thus, Bazball was born – a strategy devised to use the resources efficiently rather than revolutionize the system. It is not a strategy to revolutionize global cricket.

All that talk of Bazball revolutionizing global test cricket is hyperbole. Bazball is nothing but a horses-for-courses strategy that England had to adapt to fit the players at their disposal.

When the English management could not influence the design of the course, as they could have done at home, we saw what happened in the just-concluded India series.

Even though the result of this series was 4 -1, the tourists managed their resources admirably well. The lopsided result reflects that English horses do not fit into Indian courses. But I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the management philosophy.

As we have seen over the years, Test cricket demands players to use techniques adaptable to situations and playing conditions. All the fabulous teams of the past had brilliant players, who could play both defence and offence.

The great South African test team under Graeme Smith had players like AB De Villers, Hashim Amla, to name a few, who could block the whole day or score 400 runs in a day.

They had great bowlers like Dale Styen, who could demolish batting lineups in alien conditions like the sub-continent.

When you have many players like that, you just tell them to play test cricket. There is no need to mint a new strategy for them.

The great Don Bradman scored a triple hundred in a day in the 1930s; aggressive batting is not a Bazball invention.

If, by miracle, the English system starts to produce Joe Roots and James Andersons by the dozen, England will drop the term Bazball and call it normal Test cricket again.

However, when all they have is a flawed bunch at hand, they will have to ‘Bazball’ their way out of it.

My biggest worry for England is that their system has been so rigged for white-ball cricket that they will have to stick with this style.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

It is not just England; I am seeing Australian test batting going in the same direction as England – a bunch that has great offensive skills but poor in defence. Australia is not producing Ricky Pontings and Mark Waughs anymore.

For all we know, the whole Test cricketing world will be Bazballing in the next few years.

The Crowd Says:

2024-03-12T22:32:10+00:00

BigGordon

Roar Rookie


In a nutshell, you're suggesting the England management came up with a strategy (Bazball) to maximise available talent, which is another way of saying, papering over the cracks - sort of. I think that's a fair enough idea, but they've taken it way too far and it hasn't covered all the cracks. McCullum's view that batsmen should play their natural game makes sense, but only when conditions allow. The gun batsmen in world Test cricket could adapt their styles to suit, which is exactly what Root did later in the series. The rest didn't, or couldn't and that led to low totals. Bazball doesn't extend to either bowling resources or fielding and these are big problems for England. This is not an athletic team and they dropped way too many easy chances. Stokes disguised their failings with fancy field changes but in reality, they leaked runs and didn't take their chances. They also relied on 3 bowlers in this series, two of whom were debutants and another not really suited to the conditions. That they managed to keep India in check for most of the series is a tribute to them, but they were simply not good enough to bowl India out often enough to win games.

2024-03-12T21:00:17+00:00

badmanners

Roar Rookie


A good read Tsat, in my opinion that's exactly why England have gone down this path, but there's no shame in losing to this Indian team at home. Jus as an aside I saw a great meme the other day: " England need to forget this bazball sh#t and go back to what made them successful. Stealing South African cricketers!"

2024-03-11T21:30:39+00:00

Linphoma

Roar Rookie


I had a conversation during the Sydney Olympics with an Indian colleague and asked him about hockey and he said they dominated before astroturf. When they went to artificial surfaces the Indian and Pakistani players lost their advantages in skilful stickwork, head above the ball on dodgy decks. It became a power game. Astroturf is expensive too prohibiting development. The Olympic finals involved Australia v Pakistan (bronze medal playoff), and the Dutch v South Korea for the gold. The Dutch and Australian sides were massive men. No kidding the Dutch 11 could mix it with an NRL side from their physiques. The Asian sides were little people by comparison and the results showed. Australia bronze, South Korea silver and the Netherlands gold.

2024-03-11T21:07:35+00:00

Griffo 09

Roar Rookie


I've heard hockey is pretty popular in some parts... some.

2024-03-11T09:35:11+00:00

Greg Russell

Roar Guru


Strangely, you start with the thesis "All that talk of Bazball revolutionizing global test cricket is hyperbole", but by the end you conclude "For all we know, the whole Test cricketing world will be Bazballing in the next few years." So which is it?

2024-03-11T04:02:12+00:00

Linphoma

Roar Rookie


Plus, I get cricket is THE only game in town. Everything else pales in comparison. It's not just about money. A mate of mine who follows world football leagues closely mentioned the money in Indian football - yet it registers a blip. I'd wager if an Indian athlete sprung up and won an Olympic gold there would be intense interest for a brief period and then nothing. The oxygen gets sucked out of everything else.

AUTHOR

2024-03-11T01:58:58+00:00

Tsat

Roar Guru


The breadth of resources available and the importance of red ball domestic cricket.. India is lucky to be able to play cricket all through the year.. So IPL and domestic league finds plenty of time to live next to each other

2024-03-11T01:24:04+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Thanks Tsat, England 2022-2024 could ultimately prove to be the exception to the rule, with a two-speed economy increasingly separating the "Big 3" from the rest. Aus, Eng and Ind each has sufficient playing and financial depth to support parallel first-class and T20 formats. They can customise scheduling and pitches, and player contracting and development, for each stream. Both a Marcus Stoinis, and a Chris Rogers, can make a living. And the two formats will regularly clash and overlap, due to the sheer quantity of their games in each format. In contrast, each other nation will draw on the same player pool for both formats. So it will play no more Tests than the FTP requires, and keep all other periods free, so that its best individual players can play T20 as their main income. As we already see with NZ and RSA.

2024-03-10T20:54:47+00:00

Linphoma

Roar Rookie


Interesting. You'd think India would have gone the same way with their embrace of the 20 over giggle, yet they can still produce Pujara who was appreciated by teammates and the public (even if he grated some for his lack of pyrotechnics). How come India's bowlers can still do the job with the red ball? Is it the sheer breadth of playing resources to draw on?

Read more at The Roar