Have We Seen The Last Of Bazball?

After its second biggest loss in terms of runs at Rajkot on 18 February, England did what schoolboys do after such a defeat: Point an accusing finger at the umpiring system. 

Okay, England management is a past master in throwing red-herrings. Knowing full well that it could not get away if it outright blamed the video referral system for the shellacking it received in Rajkot — it was the eighth-biggest win by runs in Test cricket and the second-biggest for anyone against England. England’s worst defeat in the last 90 years of Test cricket. 

After such morale-shattering loss, most teams would be defensive and introspective. But the Bazball cult worshippers went on the frontfoot even here, and suggested that the 'umpire's call' in the DRS (Decision Review System) be removed.

This is a sensationally-controversial call. One that has taken away the focus from what should be the real topic of discussion: Is Bazball really what it is being made out to be by the English team and its media?

England captain Ben Stokes and the coach Brendon McCullum talked to the match referee Jeff Crowe about the dismissal of Zak Crawley (out LBW to Jasprit Bumrah). The onfield adjudicator Kumar Dharmasena upheld the 'Indians' appeal' and the DRS review from Crawley was nullified on 'umpire's call'.  

The English team, however, feel that going by the image thrown up by broadcasters the ball seems to be missing the top of the leg-stump. This marginal decision was good enough for Stokes to mount his whingeing megaphone and also make a case for removing such decisions from the rule books.

But according to Cricinfo, it was just that the image was wrong and Stokes had been told that the 'hawk-eye' — the technology that predicts the movement of the ball — confirmed that the calculations themselves were correct, and the said delivery would have likely made contact with the leg-stump.

Englishmen At It Again

Casting aspersions on the entire system is an old trick of losers. Stokes and Co were unhappy with another marginal decision in the second Test at Vizag too.

At that time, the guy behind the hawk-eye tech, Paul Hawkins, had defended it saying that it was beyond manipulation. The Cricinfo article quotes him from Sunday Times as saying: "For every DRS (incident), we do screen-grabs which show everything the (hawk-eye) operator shows. This is automatic, we can't manipulate it, and that immediately goes to the ICC (the game's governing body) as part of the quality control process."

So as it exists now, it is near fool-proof. But the England team is less than convinced. In any case, it is a bit rich of Stokes to suggest 'umpiring call' to be dubious.

Among the batsmen in modern-day cricket, Stokes is the one who has benefited the most from the 'umpire's call'. Out of seven appeals on the DRS when he was the batter, Stokes has been saved six times by 'umpire's call' — a whopping 84 per cent, the highest among the current players. 

No squeak when the decision is going your way but insidiously besmirching the process when it goes against you, it is an old England tactic. One that the cricket watching community has gone numb watching. Equally benumbing is the English media narrative around the cult of Bazball.

After India's victory in the second Test at Vizag, one English media outlet had a headline on the idea: "Why it feels like 2-0 when it is 1-1". Bazball, one suspects, is the art of playing cricket in a manner that it erodes the thinking faculty among your sports journalists. 

One can understand a certain amount of talking-up by the English media around Bazball, which is exciting when it actually comes off. But is it really a well-thought out unique cricketing strategy, a cricketing equivalent of sliced bread invention?

The Numbers Behind Bazball

Indeed, under the helm of Stokes-McCullum, English batsmen are going for the leather. But the England think-tank has been claiming that Bazball is more than about mere thrashing of the bat against the red ball. They peg it as a wholesome package of no prisoners taken and no prisoners given cricket. 

The stats under Stokes-McCullum duo, the patron saints of Bazball: England has played 22 Tests, winning 14 games, losing seven, and drawing one.

Stokes' win percentage of 63.63 per cent (among those who have captained the side in at least 10 Tests) is the best in England's 147-year history in Test cricket. But, standalone, a 14-7 scoreline is not bad nor is it extremely good. It is one of those numbers that sit uncomfortably in between.

It is the hallmark of any good team to play aggressive and initiative-seeking cricket. Bradman's invincibles did. The West Indies of the 80s and the Aussies of the Steve Waugh-Ricky Ponting era, to be sure, played on the metaphorical frontfoot and always ahead of the eight-ball, as it were. 

Both the Aussies and West Indies had players who could go all out on the attack mode. But when the situation so demanded, they could also shut shop and play in the lower gears. That is, they could grind out the opposition bowlers through methodical defence. That is the true test of a good Test team. 

And that is where McCullum's men come out different. They don't do defence well.

Under Stokes's captaincy, England have maintained an astonishing run of 4.62 runs per six balls in Test matches. But this all-out attack seems more a response to the fact that England don't have enough batting resources that can play conventional Test cricket.

In other words, it can be argued that with Bazball, England is making a virtue out of necessity.

Can England Bat Out To Save A Test?

Take the case of the Rajkot Test itself. When the fourth innings target was over 500, on a pitch that did not have many demons, surely a draw — a glorious one at that — was a possible option.

Winning, everyone who was realistic and understood cricket, was impossible. But save for Joe Roo, who in this current England team could have stayed there (and Stokes, perhaps), none of the others had it in them to battle it out Atherton-like at Johannesburg circa 1995. 

With its batting limited, it tried a foolhardy style of play which, not unsurprisingly, resulted in one of the heaviest losses in Test cricket. 

But typical of England, it is selling the idea as a valorous process. Bazball actually sounds a lot like 'paradigm shift' — vacuous term everyone uses, but no one really understands.

The real problem is that this going-for-hell idea is nullifying the otherwise reliable batting of Root. His first innings dismissal at Rajkot had the banner with 'stupid' written all over it. Root made bold to attempt a reverse paddle against Bumrah, off a delivery outside the off-stump. The miscue landed at second slip.

If you contrived such a shot in Ranji Trophy, your coach will give you an earful. Here Root was made to look a fool because the team thinks it is playing fearless cricket.

Quite revealingly, under McCullum's coaching, Root's Test average has slipped from 51.52 to 49.20. Among those who did duty at Rajkot, Root's batting alone has suffered under McCullum. The rest of the batters (Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Bairstow, Stokes and Foakes) have seen their average improve under the Bazball regime.

But these are the people who can't save you a Test against quality bowling attack, which the Indian team's is, especially at home. 

In a sense, McCullum has understood that in this T20 era you can't expect batsmen to have the wherewithal to stay put there for long. Modern-day cricket doesn't allow for such skills to flourish.

In that event, to maximise what is available, he seems to have chosen the ploy of see-ball-hit-hard. He has been practical and realistic.

But he is no visionary nor is Bazball the mantra to save Test cricket. It is aggression born out of desperation and need. It can win matches. In itself, it is not a sustainable winning process. Rajkot and Vizag may be the beginning of its end. Just as well!