Bazball means playing without fear, but there’s no escaping playing without embarrassment
It’s fair to say that the current Ashes series is not unfolding as England wanted.
Even in their worst-case scenario they wouldn’t have imagined it going this badly.
Currently 2-0 down in the series having played less than five days’ worth of cricket, England are looking decidedly second-rate.
England arrived in Australia boasting the world’s two top ranked Test cricket batsmen in the form of Joe Root and Harry Brook. They also featured what was allegedly the fastest bowling quintet since the dawn of speed measurement.
On paper, it all sounded good; so how is it turned so bad so quickly? A lot has been made of Bazball, with the current players sparring in the media with former players, while Australia quietly gets on with their business. Is Bazball the problem? Indeed, what is Bazball?
Let’s take a moment to unpack it and see if we can find a way for England to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
Also read: England Ashes power ranking sees Pope and Brook plummet
What is Bazball?
Bazball is the term widely used to describe the ultra-positive, attacking style of Test cricket adopted by England since Ben Stokes became captain and Brendon “Baz” McCullum became head coach in 2022.
Bazball is a philosophy essentially comprised of five principal tenets.
Aggressive batting
Let’s start by saying that in principle, the concept of Bazball is a good one. Who doesn’t want to watch aggressive batting? But already, at this stage the message starts to get confused – because what does it mean to be aggressive?
Hitting sixes and trying to score at a run-a-ball is one way of being aggressive. But that is not the only way of being aggressive. Different situations call for different types of aggression.
Muhammed Ali spoke a great game ahead of the Rumble in the Jungle before he rope-a-doped his way through a significant portion of the fight, making George Foreman throw (and miss) the punches.
Who was the aggressor in that situation? Although it was Foreman who was swinging, it was Ali who was in control, making Foreman perform exactly as he wanted to.
At the risk of offending, England’s interpretation of aggression lacks both depth and nuance. Aggression is not swinging for the hills and hoping for the best, aggression is about dominating your opponent and submitting them to your will.
As it stands it is Australia who are in complete control, they know what to expect, they know how to deal with it, and they are reaping the results with extreme efficiency. Quite frankly, England are not being aggressive, they are being stupid.
Positive intent in all phases
Who can, or would want to, argue with this? Positive intent should mean knowing what the goals are and seeking to achieve them.
Each ball should have a goal in the same way that each session or phase of play should have a goal. But that goal isn’t always spectacular. Your goal cannot always be to score 400 runs in a day.
There are times when you must dig foundations and there are times when you need to put your foot on the opposition’s throat and go for the kill. What is missing for England at present is the ability to shape a match. This is Test cricket – it unfolds over five days.
While it can theoretically be won in two days, that’s not the way it has been designed and England need to ask themselves, have Australia been winning inside three days or has it been a case England finding the quickest way to hand the result to Australia?
Freedom from fear
McCullum and Stokes have repeatedly stressed that players should not worry about failure. This is great and, in many ways, it should be seen as a gift to the players allowing them to go out and play with confidence knowing that they are backed.
There is, however, a difference between fear and embarrassment and, as it stands, England may be playing with a freedom of fear, but they are certainly not free of embarrassment.
Results-driven boldness
Another wonderful tenet which has seen England declare innings early, chase large fourth-innings targets and select teams to maximise attacking potential, even in unfavourable conditions.
This is fantastic and it is something that should be encouraged. But again, there should be context.
If you are 2-1 up in a Test series and asked to chase a score 600 to win the final Test, perhaps throwing caution to the wind isn’t the answer, if doing so could mean squaring the series 2-2.
If, however, you were 2-1 down, then playing to draw the game would be meaningless and all-out attack should be encouraged. As it stands it feels like the philosophy of Bazball trumps the context of any game or series situation and that is England’s massive failure.
Entertainment as philosophy
Another wonderful ideal and one which should be praised. The question to ask here, is what is entertainment? Perhaps it is best illustrated in a football context.
Would you support a team who score four goals every weekend but concede five or would you prefer to support a side who win 1-0 week in and week out?
As a neutral it goes without saying that watching the nine-goal thriller would be the preference of most fans.
But as a supporter you want to see your team winning. England are one of the best supported teams in the world, but their poor fans are not seeing them win often enough. Entertainment is first about winning and second about winning in style.
How about a plan B?
So, what do England do now? As it stands there doesn’t seem to be a Plan B or an understanding of what aggression is. That needs to change – immediately.
England DO have the skills to win Tests in Australia (and anywhere else for that matter), but they need to mix things up. That’s not to say they must abandon aggression and the desire to win, they just need to understand that sometimes they need to grind it out.
As it stands Australia can see them coming and they know exactly what to expect, which is absolutely no way to seize the initiative and control a game.
Aggression is also about the element of surprise, it is about cunning and craft and yet, sometimes it is about the grind. In a world where Australia knows exactly what is coming it is very easy plan against it.
Is Bazball even new?
Is Bazball something new or did England just rename winning cricket? If you look at the five key tenets of Bazball as outlined above it is hard to argue that England invented it.
In 1986 an England side that featured, amongst others, Ian Botham, Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting, David Gower and Allan Lamb toured the West Indies and were hammered 5-0.
The West Indies side skippered by Viv Richards featured players like Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Richie Richardson, Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner.
They were fearsome and, while England may choose to deny this, that West Indies team played Bazball – or at least, they played cricket that featured each of the five core tenets of Bazball.
And they weren’t the only side to do it. Donald Bradman and Steve Waugh’s great Australian sides were similar. Graeme Smith’s South African’s similarly so. Bazball is the way top teams play cricket.
But and this is the part that will hurt England fans, if you aren’t a top team, you can’t play that type of cricket – you certainly can’t play it all the time, and that is what England are failing to recognize.
If you walk into a game as the favourite, then you might look to impose yourself from the outset.
But if you walk in as the underdog, you are the underdog for a reason and you must adapt. In short, England cannot play the same way against Australia as they would against Zimbabwe.
What does it all mean for the third Test?
If England’s goal is to find a way back into the series in the third Test (which we assume is what they are looking to do), then they need to find a way to win. Can they rock up in Adelaide and play the same way they have in the first two Tests. Quite simply, no, they cannot.
So, what has to change? They need to earn the right to go big and they need to find a way to balance aggression with consequence.
The 10th wicket partnership in Brisbane between Jofra Archer and Joe Root is a great example of when it was appropriate to play shots and chance the arm – and it worked.
The pair shared a 70-run stand as they gambled and won. If they had lost, the consequences would not have been overly severe as at 264 for nine there was very little to lose.
England need to find a way to dictate terms in Adelaide. Steve Smith has scarcely had anything to do as captain of Australia because at no point has he had to react to anything. England have been predictable, and predictable is no way to win a game.
England need to find a way to back up their talk by delivering in the field. The catching in Brisbane was atrocious; and you can say what you like about the pink ball and the awkward evening light, but Australia had it too and they were excellent.
You can talk about ‘results-driven boldness’ and ‘freedom from fear’ all you like, but if you can’t hold your catches, it doesn’t mean anything.
Read next: How good is Ben Stokes really?