Two Tests, two defeats for England, but in rather different ways and with different attitudes, yet in both cases it is Australia who are 1-0 up.
This morning the women concluded on the fifth day – praise be for that change – but England came up short and will have some regrets, firstly that they didn’t kick on a little more in the first innings and for the shot selection in the second (plus a couple of tight lbws that didn’t go their way, c’est la vie). Australia are a fantastic team, and the addition of a fifth day making a result far more likely meant that Australia would have been deemed the likely winners before the start, but England had their chances and didn’t take them, the very essence of sport. It is instructive to note that the England women, while they score quickly, adopt a more traditional approach to run scoring than their male counterparts, which ought to be notable in the sense that this did not make them immune from making errors under pressure and playing poor shots. It is not purely a characteristic of Bazball. But unlike with the men, this one defeat really wrecks England’s chances of winning the series.
The response to England’s defeat to Australia at Edgbaston has been rather interesting. Ranging from a shrug of the shoulders to outrage depending on outlook and approach. What can be said is that it was a terrific Test match, that swung one way and then the other and was in doubt through to the very end. That in itself is becoming something of a habit for this England team, and few would deny they are quite extraordinary to watch.
The question though is to what extent England threw it away and how much it was that Australia went out and won it – plus what it means for the rest of the series. There aren’t any right or wrong answers to this, and the criticisms have validity, but equally so do the words of the defenders.
What can be agreed is that England’s approach has brought a lot more success than they had been having up to the point they flicked a switch and went on a rampage – a single win in seventeen Tests has been succeeded by eleven wins in fourteen. Overall, few would deny that this is rather better, so the criticisms are around the matter of degree rather than in general, except perhaps for a few who particularly revel in a two runs an over approach for its own sake.
Plenty of teams have adopted a positive approach to the game, that’s nothing new, where England differ is that they do so with an insouciance that looks reckless to many. But I would argue that this is not quite what it seems, or more specifically, the recklessness is deliberate, strategic and built in. “Playing without fear” is a mantra heard often, but it hardly ever means what it says, as Test cricket even in its modern form isa game where restraint is almost always the order of the day. In essence, whatever they might say, “fear” is baked into the equation, the fear of getting out, the fear of a collapse, the reluctance to play with complete freedom. It’s not a bad thing at all, it’s normal, at least historically. Where England are unique is that when they say they are playing without fear, they really mean it. Getting out is met with indifference and an occupational hazard precisely because of that approach. Anaethema to many it may be, but it is central to how England are playing. And this is important to note, because when it is said that all England need to do is to reign it in a bit, it is to change this mentality completely – it is to add fear, it is add the reticence to play with complete abandon. You will not get a team who can romp along at seven an over with it.
That doesn’t mean England can only throw the bat, for after England were somewhat unfortunately batting in poor conditions (sporting luck and bad luck, so be it) and lost wickets, they did tick over a bit more slowly in the second innings as it proceeded, Root’s scoop first ball of the day notwithstanding; but the ability to do that still without fear is the central aspect of England’s approach, the urgent desire to cut loose being transparently obvious even as they scored a little more slowly. Indeed, Stokes has been fairly criticised for going too far on many an occasion, throwing his wicket away when he scores fast enough normally not to need to do so, and yet in that second innings that is precisely what he did – his eventual dismissal being one of those normal enough cricketing occurrences. But to believe that England could flick a switch in terms of their approach is to misunderstand how they are even capable of going berserk in the first place – to change it in one context is to change it in all, it cannot be to cheer them on scoring at seven an over only to insist they don’t have that mindset when it is deemed to be inappropriate, it is, in cricketing cliche, to ask them to hit sixes but not take any risks. It isn’t that people are wrong to do so however, but it is to emphasise that the only reason you can have the extraordinary sight of England going nuts is to appreciate that they cannot just defend and accumulate, it really is one or the other, the mental bridge is far too wide.
The same applies to the declaration on day one. In the first instance, to assume a day one action led directly to the day five result ignoring all that went between is to beg the question, but also because the thinking and mentality was so clear. It was to put Australia on the back foot and try and get late evening wickets and then have another go the following morning with a still new ball. It can be disagreed with certainly, but the logic of the aspiration was clear and we cannot solely judge on the outcome as though if they’d taken three wickets on that first day it was a stroke of genius and because they didn’t it wasn’t. In terms of the attempt to put Australia on the defensive in approach, it did work – Australia were oddly passive throughout the Test match (the very vocal sledging coming from Australian sidelines is instructive too – you don’t need to do that if you’re not a teeny bit concerned), and while they won, that might have an impact further down the line when England carry on doing this. Or not, there are no guarantees. Furthermore, Australia might have won, but they are in any case a far better side than England, defeat in itself doesn’t mean the approach was wrong, any more than believing a more restrained England would have got across the line has a great deal to back it up. The suspicion has to be a more defensive England would be hammered. It is, in essence, the opposite – England’s best chance of beating Australia is to go all out, and if that is concurred with in principle, then it means accepting the downside that it cannot, will not, always work, and may even not work at all.
The same applies to selection. Whether Moeen Ali was the right call or not is open to question, but believing a tailor made alternative would have come in and scored a century and taken ten-fer is to indulge the realms of fantasy. No player is as good as when he’s been left out of the team, but the criticisms there need to be aimed at the structural weaknesses of the England cricketing structure that meant that he was a viable option in the first place. Another player might have done better, or might have done worse, to assume certainty is to reprogramme the matrix.
Similarly, Bairstow’s inclusion came at the expense of an extremely unlucky Ben Foakes. When analysing the reasons for England’s defeat the dropped catches and missed stumpings loom large, and unlike with Moeen Ali, it is reasonable enough to acknowledge that Foakes is more than good enough for it to be assumed with reasonable cause he would have taken more of them, especially stood up to the stumps where he excels. But few would deny that Bairstow should be in the side as a batsman, and as a result a decision had to be made about where. Given Zak Crawley has few advocates, the option there would be to move someone else to open and have both Bairstow and Foakes, but it is an either/or and they went with retaining Crawley. On that one, it is selectorial stubborness for sure, but Crawley himself is very much part of the England thinking because of how he plays – it is less a matter of whether he is worthy in itself and more whether someone else can do precisely that role better than him. To understand is not to concur, but failure to understand means the wrong criticisms are made.
Those dropped catches had far more consequence in terms of outcome than anything else. It is a cricketing normal, catches win matches being more than just a cliche. Indeed, even at the end a difficult chance put down by Stokes could be viewed as being the game right there. But it also must be said that some of the critiques failed to sufficiently acknowledge what an outstanding partnership it was from Cummins and Lyons – whatever else went on, to win the game eight down from there was an exceptional performance. Australia won that game rather than England losing it, and sometimes you simply have to doff your cap. Had two quick wickets fallen some of the earlier England decisions that have been criticised would have been praised as creating the time to secure an England win. And this is no small matter, a more conservative England approach, even had it succeeded, would have resulted in the match being drawn. And yes, 0-0 might be preferable to 1-0 down, but it created the opportunity for England to win the match, that they ultimately didn’t take it is a separate matter.
England do have a tendency to state their aim is save Test cricket, which irks plenty of Australians – and therefore is a good thing in itself – but also English fans who say their first priority should be winning matches. And so it should too, but the reason England players say this in defeat is to give affirmation for their approach when they’ve lost. It is evidently human to say such things.
This is somewhat lofty, but all teams do need that self-justification when things go wrong, to reassure themselves they are on the right path in what they do. It’s understandable, and when looked at in the wider context it is also welcome in that it is pleasing that they believe it to be worth saving,
but it is also undoubtedly fair comment to point to the discrepancy, as long as there’s understanding why they say these things.
Many are annoyed, many more are disappointed. I just can’t be. Might you disagree? Absolutely so, and that’s fine, but I will challenge that and say why I feel as I do. It’s certainly not that I’m right and others are wrong, it is that sensing an affinity as to why they do what they do means that I remain entirely content to take the rough with the smooth on these things. The question then put is how I’d feel if England lose the series heavily, and I can honestly respond that it will be with the same general indifference to individual outcome when set against the bigger picture. I do get why others differ, but I can only express how it is for me. And I will leave you with one thing – anecdote isn’t data and there’s no reason to assume it ought to be, but three friends generally relatively indifferent to Test cricket followed, listened and watched this one with fascination, enjoyment, excitement and at the end crippling nerves. And that gives me hope for the game. Hope has been missing for a very long time.
Being Outside Cricket 
Top work Chris.
Irking Australians should always be a priority.
If we get hammered this series playing this way I think I would prefer it to being hammered whilst totally behind in every single match we play.
We were ahead in the game until the last partnership on an incredibly slow pitch that did nothing even with the new ball. Aus won the match because Cummin’s stood up to it and fair play to him.
I think this is reminiscent of 2005 because in the first test we didn’t step back and didn’t flinch after losing the first test.
I am looking forward to the rest of this series
LikeLiked by 1 person
That all makes great sense to me. I always groan whenever Nasser drools over a “good leave” anyway. Well, how many times have we seen a batsman get bowled while waving his bat over his head.
I’ve long thought that a bonus from one day cricket is the willingness to smack a good length ball to the boundary rather than play it gently down to mid off.
I’m happily behind England’s approach. Hey, they might get better at it. Certainly, as many have observed, playing the cautious way has lost us matches in the past.
Oh yes, I would drop Crawley. Didn’t Harry Brook say he’d be happy to open?
LikeLike
A good defence, and much I agree with. It is at the margins where we are disagreeing. These are always the most difficult issues as it is in the shades of grey where we differ.
I would point out that I fully supported the appointment of both the coach and captain. I also believed that a change of approach was a necessity as the past few years had been dire. The previous two captains, although world class batsman, were never in my view captain material. Stokes is a breath of fresh air.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a definition of exactly what Bazzbal is? Only because it is in danger of becoming something akin to a cult. It is taking on for itself a life of its own that almost seems to want to do things for effect rather than hard cricket reasons. Difference for difference sake. (I see some Aussie journos we’re trying to bait England into putting Australia in on day one so England could chase on the final day. Then Claiming that England had bottled out. ) That is the problem if you make a lot of grandiose statements about your intent to chase anything.
For me Bazball is playing without fear, yes, playing to your strengths, and playing positively. Which in this era, is like white ball cricket. But there is a line before you tip over into recklessness. Yes, the line is wafer thin, but it is vitally important. I don’t actually expect England to bat at seven an over.
I haven’t criticised any of the batting or shot selections. That is the way they play, a white ball style brought to test cricket. I also think it is inevitable going forward for most if not all test playing nations simply because that is the only type of players who will be produced.
My criticisms are of some of the tactical decisions. First off the loss was worse than it appeared. Yes, the game went to the wire, but only because the equivalent of an entire day was lost during the match. Effectively England lost on the fourth day after having won the toss and batting first, and making almost 400. But they were not bowled out, they decided to declare with a batsman not out on 118. Of course the last two wickets could have added nothing more, but I think it was a reckless decision which allowed their opponents back into the game. And followed on the heels of another strange decision in New Zealand. Which also cost England a win. (Again, close matches but two defeats.)
Englands bowling potency seems to dwindle as the ball gets a bit older. We don’t have express pace or a quality spinner. This would show up in both Australian innings in the lower order. I fear for Englands attack with two forty years olds as the series advances, unless the conditions become more advantageous to swing and seam. Was Ali picked as the best available spinner? Of was England back to finding bowlers who can bat, just like the bad all days? I thought those sort of compromises were no longer valid under Bazball? Same with Folks. Are we back to picking wicketkeepers for their batting first? If we are slightly concerned about our depth of batting ability maybe we shouldn’t be declaring with a man on 118 on the first day of an Ashes series?
I’m sure these will be regarded as minor quibbles but it is the devil you find the detail. Australia are a better side than England at this format, and I expect their top order batting to fire in this series. It’s why I think losing the first Test match on a good ground for England is so frustrating, and makes it very difficult to win the series now.
Again, I must reiterate my criticism is not to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don’t want whole sale changes to the general ideas. Just a little bit more savvy grey matter when your opponent is down, don’t take your foot off his throat just for show.
But Bazball has surprised before, maybe will do so again. England fans will hope so.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’d say they’re quibbles, I would say it’s just a difference of view. My argument is that you’re just not going to get the one without the other, but it’s fine to differ on it and have a proper dust up, right? 😉
LikeLike
Oh yes absolutely. I’m not one who is calling for a magic search for the next Boycott, and believes England can crawl along at two an over. We have seen that doesn’t work, and England get bowled out for less than 200 anyway. Those sort of players are just not being produced anymore anyway.
I get what you are saying. It’s either no fear, all the time, no matter what or the fear creeps back in. I just think it can be tweaked a little bit. That’s all. But it’s just a matter of degrees of difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Test comment to see if it gets through
LikeLike
Ok, this is odd, I wrote a big comment which didn’t get through.
TL;DR – I’m largely in favour of the tactics because if we’re honest, given how shallow our bowling resources are, I think we lose playing the normal way anyway.
LikeLike
Yep, went to spam for some reason. It’s live now.
LikeLike
So I presume you criticise the generosity shown at Multan as well as that at the Basin Reserve and Edgbaston?
(Or would you say Gilchrist at Headingly in 2001 was too generous – and that the ideal is the hard heartedness of a Steve Waugh elsewhere in that series – and sod the need for entertainment)
Tempering the Men’s Teams approach is perhaps not as easy as you think. (And equally perhaps your criticisms about a lack of savvy might be more appropriate to the Women’s who threw the Test away in little more than an hour yesterday)
(I also did not realise that “Inside Baseball” had a generic meaning – or that Clarke was a fan of the Sport. One learns something everyday)
LikeLike
It’s a very fine line Rob I agree. As I say above, it’s wafer thin. It’s not an exact science. I get it. However, I’m not sure you want to be too overly generous on the first day of a test match against the best test team currently in the world when you have won the toss and decided to bat, and still yet to pass 400, and have a bloke not out on 118.
England have to regain the Ashes so they have to win the series. They may still do so. But they now need to win at least two of the remaining 4 matches. It will be a good series to win from here.
LikeLike
Been waiting for this. I largely agree with you Chris.
In particular I think it has to be emphasised that at least when looking at the first Test (I live in perhaps vain hope things may improve by the 3rd) the depth of England bowling is so far behind Aus that we should be expecting to lose 5-0 (especially if Smith has a couple of good days). As such, if the Bazball tactics can regularly take us as close as it did in the 1st Test (and maybe even snatch a win) – that’s actually a huge, Brierley like, over-performance out of tactics/captaincy.
I also, boringly agree that “the way you play” is not something a team that has come together over the last year can switch on or off. The greatest teams can play more than one way, but they get to that point over time. I could imagine that if the Bazball experiment lasts 5 years, and we solve some of the bowling depth problems (and the Crawley, ahem, opener problem) then England might evolve into a team that can smash it they way they do now, but also play a little differently now and then.
That said, I think one can pick some nits. I think the declaration was a good psychological ploy and tactically, as you say, even a couple of early wickets would have made it look good. That said, I think there’s a fair argument for delaying the declaration and asking Joe Root “so how many sixes can you hit per over until you get out.” Overall though, one has to accept that the remaining batsmen sometimes get out quickly, so I’d finger the 2nd innings wicket taking against tailenders as the real issue.
Here we come to some issues which are almost not even Bazball, in that they are the kind of issues I’ve seen again and again with England. Picking a bowler who is not Test match fit (Mo) – and I think the lack of a front line spinner hurt in getting the Aus tailenders out. It’s tough because who else you pick is not obvious, but the record of teams who go a bowler down early is pretty consistently bad – so that has to be factored into selection. Also of course here we must mention the lack of depth – no bowler who has the extreme of pace or spin to panic tailenders was available – but this is a persistent England problem.
Anderson and Robinson were also used a little oddly by Stokes in the 2nd innings. It’s not obvious from the figures, but for a while Stokes overbowled Broad (who was on a hot streak) because Anderson was looking unthreatening. A bit of that with Robinson too at times. But that blunted Broad a bit too, especially by the time we come to the tailenders.
Finally Bairstow/Foakes. This one is complex. It’s complex because the answer that wins matches is have Foakes, but have openers who can do the job reliably… only, we don’t have that. And I don’t think Bairstow can open. The stats definitely favour Foakes given the runs after missed chances – but I’m not sure England get into a position to win with Foakes coming out to bat in the 1st innings rather than Bairstow. I guess my off the wall solution is to drop an opener and put Stokes in as opener.
Which brings us to one more depth issue. I think we all feel like Crawley doesn’t work long term – but who is there to come in? And personally, not sure Duckett can do it against Aus either.
LikeLike
I think one of the issues with Crawley has become, as Chris talks about more generally, that he’s the litmus test for Bazball. Having wedded themselves so completely to this do-or-die approach, dropping Crawley in some ways would be an admission of failure–not to develop Crawley, but a failure of faith in the approach.
But it’s interesting isn’t it? How much less does he need to average to get dropped?! As for who to replace him with, one of Crawley’s issues is that he’s got a very poor f-c record–so he’s not underperforming or not making the step up, he’s already performing at his talent ceiling…which is not test level consistently.
I would still maintain anyway that he doesn’t need to be replaced with an opener–his replacement is Foakes. If they want a “real” opener, they could do worse than give Tom Haines a go.
LikeLike
Somehow this series keeps reminding me of the Jelly Babies incident in 2007, and the subsequent series result. That is, there’s a BIG difference between mouthing off about how hard you are (yes, we’re looking at you Ollie Robinson!) and how hard you’re going to come at everyone…and how hard you really are.
Often the mouthing off about being hard–which sometimes seems to be an English speciality–seems to be borne of a complete insecurity about how hard you really are. REALLY hard people don’t spend their time–and their precious energy–mouthing off about being hard; they just ARE tough, and often the tougher the situation, the tougher they get. Quietly.
It’s interesting, because some of England’s recent selection, especially since they’ve got a bit obsessed with how Bazball they have to be, strikes me as soft in the extreme. Sure it’s good to make the dressing-room a welcoming place, but at bottom it’s an international sports team, not a support group. It’s complicated a little by the fact that there are no obvious replacements for some of the spots, but keeping picking Crawley, for example, seems much too soft and indulgent (I find it hard to imagine Australia countenancing that). It’s also a bit bizarre–the current regime seems to pride itself on ripping up the rule-book, yet they can’t find a way to avoid dropping their pressure-creating wicketkeeper because they don’t want to play someone who’s not an opener as an opener (which is not entirely true anyway–Root was originally an opener, for several years, and Brook has also spent at least one season opening for his county).
I can see the same thing coming in the way they talk currently about Anderson and Broad–yet a tough team would know that they might have to find ways to drop one if not both of them in the not too distant future. In that respect the selection for India will be very interesting, because there’s no way that Broad, who has a truly dreadful record in South Asia, should be on that tour.
LikeLike
If you guys don’t still know about what’s going on in international sport then I ain’t gonna help you find out – just highlights your ignorance
LikeLike
I’ve not followed much of the series. I’ve not followed this site. I’ll say:
Proper no proper wk
Proper pace
Why 3 back to back 5day tests (I know why) mental
Test cricket has been sold out by ECB…aunts (check your autocorrect)
LikeLike
Is there some technical reason that all the commenters’ names have suddenly disappeared?!
LikeLike