Fine margins prove the difference as Bazball evolves

Bazball has evolved since first introduced by England last year. It needs to again to conquer the Australians.

I don’t think I have ever watched or played in a match in which the balance of power swung so much from session to session, and even within sessions, as it did in the Edgbaston Test.

Batting first and posting a total of almost 400 meant that England were slightly ahead on points until the last 20 minutes, but the whole match was characterised by one team putting on a good partnership, or picking up two quick wickets, only for their opponents to then check their momentum.

The ebb and flow was constant and exhausting.

I wrote last week that I probably wouldn’t have declared towards the end of day one, when England still had two wickets left and Joe Root looked well set after bringing up his century.

We can’t say for certain whether adding more runs would have affected the ultimate outcome, but we can say that the declaration was a real statement of intent.

This was Ben Stokes confirming to his team, Australia and everyone watching that he had the conviction to play Bazball against the best Test team in the world.

Like you have, I suspect, I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of Bazball since Tuesday night, and my first thoughts took me back a year ago to Lord’s, when Brendon McCullum and Stokes joined forces to take on New Zealand.

Back then England scored at 3.3 runs an over in the first innings and 3.5 in chasing down 279 to win by five wickets. Stokes’s overall strike rate was 46. Doesn’t sound very Bazball, does it?

Of course, that England team went into the match on the back of a wretched 12 months and the wicket and conditions were more bowler friendly than anything we saw in Birmingham last week, so a certain watchfulness was understandable. My point, though, is that Bazball has evolved and it can do so again.

Let’s go back to the opening hour of the fourth day at Edgbaston. It was an audacious start by England: resuming on 28 for two and putting on 100 in 15 overs for the loss of one wicket. Root again was well set, Harry Brook was going through the gears.

Australia, as they did for most of the game, had the field out protecting the boundaries. The hard work had been done.

Now this may sound like old-fashioned talk from a batsman whose Test strike rate was just under 47, but could England not have kept their foot on their opponents’ throats by picking up the easy runs on offer from such a deep field?

Scott Boland, who went for six an over in the match, was looking ineffectual, so, with Nathan Lyon at one end, Pat Cummins only really had himself and Josh Hazlewood to use at the other.

With the odd boundary from bad deliveries thrown in, the run rate would still have been more than four. That would have still been a positive option and the Australians would have deflated – not against the backdrop of a whirlwind of hitting, but against the steady and relentless accumulation of runs. Instead, Lyon was able to pick up the wickets of Brook and Root with about half the effort and guile he has used to dismiss far inferior batsmen.

England's Ben Stokes looks dejected after a narrow loss at Edgbaston Picture: PA

None of this is to query the validity of Bazball, but it is a recognition that Australia have the best batting and bowling line-up it has been tried against, and tactics often have to be modified according to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition.

For example, with the exception of Boland, all of Australia’s attack have substantial experience of bowling at Lord’s, so England’s batsmen will get few of the freebies that came our way in 2009, when we scored 364 on the first day.

What will the Aussies take out of their victory?

The obvious conclusion is that their tactic of sitting in and waiting for England’s top order to play one shot too many was vindicated.

I wonder, though, if they will draw any lessons from the final 12 overs of the game, when Cummins and Lyon came together.

With only two wickets left and 55 required, Cummins had to throw caution to the wind, but that final 45 minutes was arguably the only time in the Test when he was asking questions of his opposite number and not seeing much in the way of answers.

I’m not sure Stokes did too much wrong but it was noticeable how in that period the group huddles around him grew more frequent and involved more players.

I think back to when I was in a similar predicament at Trent Bridge in 2013, when Brad Haddin was smashing Australia ever closer to their fourth-innings target. It’s a hugely stressful situation for a captain out in the middle.

You have one eye on the scoreboard and the other on the field; you don’t mind the boundaries at first, because bold shot-making often offers up a wicket, but once the required total drops below 30 they become very serious.

I am grateful that in that first Test at Nottingham we had a lunch session to regroup before James Anderson claimed Haddin soon after.

The selection of leg-spinner Rehan Ahmed for Lord’s, presumably as cover for Moeen Ali, is in keeping with the bold aggression that Stokes embraces.

Will Jacks would have been the safe option but Ahmed, inexperienced though he may be, obviously looked the more likely wicket taker in his debut Test in Pakistan.

I suspect the performance of Root with the ball gave the England leadership the confidence to select Ahmed. Before Cummins went after him in his last over late on the fifth day, Root had bowled 21 overs for 44 runs in the match.

He looks like the best holding option, which will be important if England pick Mark Wood, who is usually used in short bursts, over Ollie Robinson or Anderson on Wednesday.

After the mismatch of the 2021-22 Ashes, it was inconceivable that within 18 months there would be little more than a cigarette paper between the two sides.

To reduce the gap in that time has been a huge achievement for Stokes. His team now have the week ahead to gain the upper hand.

That will entail smart cricket as well as bold cricket.

The Times