Living in a ‘Bazball’ bubble, here comes trouble
The problem with Bazball is that, while it may be big on entertainment, the insistence on a turbo-charged game all the time actually makes it inflexible
For Test cricket, which was used to a thrust and parry approach over five days, Clive Lloyd’s ploy of all-out fast bowling in the 1970s was a revolution that took the format by storm. The Caribbean quicks were so menacing and so accurate that they often took the pitch out of the equation, and while rival batters felt the heat, they helped build a West Indies dynasty.
Australia, who constructed their teams to rival, and then take over, from West Indies, introduced all-round excellence, with tremendous situational awareness, and the ability to counter-attack. At one point, they became so good that Steve Waugh suggested four-day Tests.
Over two decades later, England have caused a global buzz by giving the five-day game a shake-up. Desperate to infuse life into the red-ball format, England appointed former New Zealand skipper Brendon McCullum, nicknamed “Baz”, as coach last summer. Known for power-hitting as a player, he convinced skipper Ben Stokes on the need for all-out aggression in their Test game. The idea that was born was, not unpredictably, christened “Bazball”.
McCullum, on taking over as coach in June 2022, spoke about the longer format facing tremendous pressure. “There is a thirst for change in England around the red-ball set-up,” he said.
In Bazball, the batters don’t hold back; they keep attacking the bowling even if wickets fall, even if the conditions or match situation are adverse. The bowlers, too, are always aggressive, and backed by attacking, and often unconventional, field set-ups, force batters to give up their defensive game and push them into mistakes.
The approach has proved popular as England won 11 of their 13 Tests before the opening Ashes Test against Australia at Edgbaston. Stokes has often spoken of responding to “moments” that come up in the match, whether they prove successful or not.
But this conviction (and philosophy) was questioned, if not shaken, after Australia, led by a top fast bowler who didn’t mind ceding the bragging rights for aggression to England, walked away with a sensational win on Tuesday. The home team’s no-holds-barred aggressive template gathered grist for debate that it may be exciting, but is it also self-defeating?
Bazball, the inflexibleThe problem with Bazball is that, while it may be big on entertainment, the insistence on a turbo-charged game all the time actually makes it inflexible. In a five-day game where match situations and pitch conditions change, and an opponent like world champions Australia have the depth to counter, there is sometimes the need to reset and go again.
Tactically, instead of posing questions, this ultra-aggressive approach eases the decision-making of the rivals, who know exactly what’s going to come at them.
And, from a larger standpoint, such a rigid philosophy at a national team level, which draw players from varied backgrounds who learnt their cricket differently, brings uniformity in talent rather than fresh options. For a cricketing system as old as England’s, this is not a good long-term plan. What this philosophy says is, if you can’t “Bazball”, you can’t be in the Test side. To put it another way, Rahul Dravid, one of the greatest batsmen of the last 30 years, and Usman Khawaja, who won Australia the first Test by batting all five days, would not have made it to the England team because their batting is different from what Bazball demands.
Australia, on the other hand, showed the merits of the playing the traditional way. None exemplified that more than opener Khawaja, who batted more than 13 hours to top-score in both innings -- 141 and 65. He was the anchor, impeccably judging deliveries outside off-stump and patiently keeping the innings together, which was vital for Australia after Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne failed in both innings.
But what was talked about the most, as emblematic of what Bazball represents, was the declaration.
England rattled off 393/8 in just 78 overs on Day 1 -- scoring at over 5 runs per over -- but Stokes declared, ostensibly to seize the moment -- grab quick wickets when batters are anxious coming on late in the day. It was a move that was as unprecedented as it was cocky. There were more than four days to go in the Test, the total was not even a respectable 400 by then, and Joe Root was batting on a majestic 118.
Eventually, with Australia conceding only a seven-run lead and then dismissing England for 273, the declaration left the visitors with a reachable target. If rain had not washed out three sessions of play over two days, Australia may have chased down the target even more easily with many, many more overs in hand.
Knives outThis Ashes series has now become a sort of referendum on Bazball, and Tuesday’s defeat has brought a slew of criticism, led by some very wise former players from both sides.
Former England skipper Nasser Hussain was dismissive of England’s tactics.
“Remember, we’ve beaten Australia in England since 2001 playing the old-fashioned way — we didn’t need Bazball to beat Australia,” he told Sky Sports. “The only thing I’ll say is they showed why they’re world Test champions and the No.1 side in the world. They’ve got some serious players and some seriously tough players as well.”
Former Australia skipper Ricky Ponting believes England will now be under pressure to shed the strategy.
“I think England have got the most questions to answer. Their style of play: Is it going to hold up in an Ashes series? By no means am I saying that England’s method is wrong, I have loved watching them play, but it just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is a long and hard game. Australia’s method has stood up and it has worked.”
Test cricket’s beauty is about playing in different conditions and challenging the ability of players to adapt. Bazball’s approach of all-out attack on flat pitches takes away this intrinsic quality of the format.The one-size-fits-all approach, also leads to a sameness, trying to turn Tests into a marathon T20.
After the first Test, it begs a larger question: Is the approach daring and hard, or just foolhardy?
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
