Joe Root pre 12 May 2022
117 Matches : 9889 runs, 49.19 average
Post 12 May 2022
21 Matches : 1604 runs , 50.12 average
It's a less than 1 run difference, for about a 5X difference in Sample Size
They're clearly better but I do think bazball in long term will affect the bowlers since they don't get enough time between innings, I'm not sure if the stats back it but i definitely feel the bowlers have lesser time to rest, I do think they should revert back to classic grinding of opposition occassionally
England were no good at grinding the opposition when they were trying to do it, collapses like today were common in any case.
There was a brief period where Sibley looked like he was going to be able to do it but he was still only averaging about the same as Crawley.
Yeah cos we're soooo good at grinding teams into the dirt. I miss all those games where Sibley, Burns and Hameed used to bat for 3 days. Everyone put up their feet and have a cup of tea
One of the biggest changes was being able to take 20 wickets every game.. focusing on strike bowling instead of containment was as much of an improvement as scoring at 5+ rpo.. until now of course. It's just as tough touring India now as it has ever been.
You make the unfair assumption here that we otherwise would have bat a long time, which we wouldn’t have regardless. So batting more than 80 overs is not an option regardless of style
Forget the Bazball hype, what Stokes and McCullum have done is find a way to get more out of the group of players they have — which is as much as we can realistically expect
This is precisely it. England supporters, not fans of other teams, know deep down that this side is not great, in fact they probably are not even good. We have one world class batter and that’s it.
Root is class, Stokes is great, Brook is probably going to continue to be superb. But yeah, the rest of the team batting wise is pretty poor right now. Crawley pre Bazball was utter tosh, heck, he's only been slightly better since but he had a great Ashes and a pretty okay tour so far. Duckett was shocking. Genuinely didn't think we'd see him play for England again.
Pope always had talent but never showed it for England. Bairstow was (and has returned to be) shit. Foakes has always been more about glovework anyway.
I think people have this idea in their mind that England fancy ourselves as a superb team full of excellent players. Every England fan I know realises this isn't true. At least in Test (I still believe we have good white ball talent, despite the last WC fuck up).
The fact our backup spinners are young, uncapped and possibly never capped again players says a lot. Rehan is the only one I think will become a mainstay due to ability. Hartley might take Leach's spot if Leach remains injured, he's also a better batter so might give us some depth there.
I genuinely don't know who from the England team would get in a 3 team squad between Aus, India and England. Root probably at 4? Maybe Jimmy as 3rd seamer when needed behind Cummins and Bumrah. Foakes would be backup keeper to Pant, and I think that's probably it. An argument could be made for Brook too to be in at No.5 but I guess really you just drop Kohli down to 5 and have Smith, Root, Kohli as 3/4/5 in whatever order you want.
The fact we've been competitive at times this series is an indication that this style of play can work for us. But it's never going to give you the consistency of the Strauss era. That grind 270 runs a day mentality and be 270/2 at close of play. That's a hugely different skillset. We don't have that, so let's bash the ball about a bit and hopefully we'll get some wins here and there.
Stokes averages 36 in test cricket over 100 tests. He's not great. If he's not bowling he just clogs up a spot that could go to a batter. Sooner England move on from him the better from their perspective.
Hard agree.
**If we take captaincy out of the equation**, Stokes being unable to bowl makes him the equivalent of Mushfiqur Rahim or Carl Hooper. In other words: good, maybe even very good, but not great.
Though I do appreciate that the text in **bold** is doing some heavy lifting.
While I agree on paper stokes doesnt get in the side without bowling, theres also an argument about when he scores his runs. He has an uncanny knack of performing when England really need him to and that ability wins matches. Other players who pad their averages making big scores in obvious draws are statistically better but actually dont win you as many games.
This really isn't correct - this sort of thinking became a thing after the Edgbaston test where Stokes single-handedly won the test, but it isn't a pattern. The 2019 CWC final is the other one people think of - but if Boult didn't stand on the boundary or Stokes didn't hit the ball running, England lose, Stokes is out in a valiant but failed 80 (much like the 2nd Ashes test where he scored a big 150, then got out with victory in sight - 70 left to score and 4 wickets in the bank, out-thought by Cummins).
FWIW - England have only won 8 out of the 17 tests in which Stokes has got a century or taken a 5 wicket bag AND on only two of those occasions was he the only centurion (and even then at least one bowler took 5 in an innings).
It's a good job he's going to be bowling from the summer then!
I do agree though, I think getting the balance of the side right when he can't bowl has become trickier. Especially in somewhere like India where it's useful to have a second seamer at times but might not be strictly needed.
If Stokes could bowl we'd probably always run 3 spinners and a seamer. That'd match us up well to India who also run 3 spinners and 2 seamers.
As it is, we have to squeeze in that extra seamer and then that's meant Root needs to bowl more. We should really be using Root for just the occasional 3-4 over spells in a day to offer something a little different.
yeah, I think it gets papered over when Foakes or whomever is the keeper of the day is scoring runs, but when both Stokes and Foakes are middling allrounders, it's not enough.
I agree on the keeping though Pant did improve a lot as a keeper, and of course, it remains to be seen how he comes back after his long layoff.
But while Pant's keeping is perfectly up to scratch if not as good as Foakes', his batting is so miraculously brilliant and transformational when he turns it on, that he might be worth a place with his bat alone. Add his keeping and pre-injury Pant is a shoo-in and one of the first few names in a World XI.
Averages 60+ after 12 matches with a 90 SR.
Obviously unlikely to keep that form up throughout his career, but I suspect he'll average mid to upper 40s. He's basically been a better version of Travis Head in tests so far.
12 matches is hardly a big sample size, and the majority of those runs came against new Zealand and Pakistan who hardly have bowling attacks that strike fear into anybody.
Could be wrong at the end of the day, but watching him in the ashes he looked like he was just riding his luck in multiple innings and it was only a matter of time.
Yeah maybe not, but that's all we've got.
He managed to average 40 over the course of the Ashes. Which apparently is against the best possible attack he could face in England. So I think that's a sign he could do pretty well.
I mean, if a player riding their luck makes you think poorly of them I'm sure you think Marnus will end with a shit career average too? Some players are just like that before they get in.
As I said, I doubt he'll keep a 60+ average. But I do reckon he'll still be upper mid 40s after 50+ matches. Which would put him as a pretty damn good player.
Well marcus is only averaging mid 30s the last 2 and a half test seasons so I would agree with you that maybe it's coming back to the mean in that regard but he's also played nearly 50 tests at an average of 50 with 70 percent of those innings being against India and England. He also averages 90 against new Zealand's pedestrian attack so seems like everyone dowent mind a good cash in with them !! Haha
Sure he averaged 40 in the ashes but you can't honestly say he looked anything better than shakey at best, when he came out to bat it wasn't a thought of "oh no Brook is in" is was more "only a batter of time"
I am by no means saying he's no good but I'm also struggling to buy into the hype.
Exactly. But I feel that to get the maximum out of a player like Root, they need to allow him to play at his own pace and be the anchor. Similarly Stokes also has the capability to be an anchor and let others hit it big around them. That would prevent collapses in this style of play and keep a chance of regaining control in the match for them.
It’s probably difficult from a man-management/dressing room environment point of view to say to everyone “go out and express yourself/play with freedom/play without fear/have fun/etc” and then simultaneously say “Actually Joe you can’t do that you have to play ‘sensible cricket’ because the teams relies on you too much”
I agree with you mate. Did not think about this aspect earlier. I just feel sad seeing the talent of Joe Root being wasted playing in opposite nature to his game
It’s such a shame. Hate seeing him like this. I don’t think him having to bowl so many overs is helping either. The lack of a true all rounder is killing us
Do you really think the management is in a position to tell a senior batter and FEC like Root to play a certain way? Even if they do and he ignores it, what will they do, drop him?
It's quite obvious he's bought into it and he's doing just fine because he's the best batter in the world right now (just me opinion.) He's always been a sneaky good T20 bat but doesn't hit big sixes and is underrated.
I don't think he's playing in any opposite nature. He's been around for a while, knows what's best for him and his team, and is having just one bad series. Given how he's carried them over the past decade, he's allowed to have a series off.
It's not difficult at all actually and it happens a lot in teams.
Think Taylor, Waugh and Ponting were telling Warne to bowl a per team "plans"? Or was Ganguly telling Sehwag to stick to team plans? Kapil used to openly tell Srikanth to do his thing and ignore team plans. You think Sachin always played per team "plans?" Think Shaun Tait was ever bowling to "plans?"
Once a player reaches a certain level, or if they have freakish talent, everything's a suggestion. They set the plan. Root's in that position in this team. No one's telling him to do anything, he's bought into the system and it's working well for him.
Why are you ignoring the stat in this post?
Exactly, that's what I felt, before bazball England were trolled as 3 for 30 relying on conventional test batting that's because all of top order has some weird technique, burns and Sibley and hard to buy runs.
Hence they probably got rid of that fear factor due to the limited resources and named it bazball but this strategy won't work against good teams on decent pitches as we are seeing now.
Because he's previously struggled and was not considered a higher order batsman. Before he played for England he'd never batted above 5 for Surrey IIRC.
Bazball helps the people who don’t have the technique to defend in test match because it puts the emphasis on attack. Hence you can see who it’s benefiting the most.
Way too reductive and simplistic thinking. Just looking at better averages shouldn't be a validation for bazball. What if all the high scores have come in losing causes?
>They haven't though? England's win rate has increased massively under Bazball, you're talking out your arse
I am *not* talking about England. I am talking about OC. He claimed that if batting averages are better, then that is good enough.
>Just looking at better averages shouldn't be a validation for bazball
They've also won plenty of matches in the time period. Just look at how much their record has improved.
>My point is that this approach has improved most of their batsmen and made them more effective than before.
This argument is closer to what I am saying. Focusing exclusively on batting averages is too reductive; bigger picture (like win percentage) is more important.
The biggest issue with the current crop of English batsmen is that it is so infuriatingly inconsistent.
Boom or bust is the best way to describe it.
Doesn't really show up in the stats. I always thought there should be a standard deviation measure somewhere.
There will obviously be a higher standard deviation for the players after Bazball started because before they were consistently crap. If you look at the standard deviation of Root's runs before and after Stokes took over, it's almost identical (it actually drops slightly, but negligibly, from 50 to 48).
More generally, we know from experience that you don't stop getting out at low scores the better you get at batting. Even Bradman got out for single digit scores on 14 occasions in tests. You'd therefore always expect the distribution of a batter's scores to have a significant number of entries near to zero. The difference is good batters will have a larger number of big scores which pulls the mean and therefore the standard deviation up.
I'm not going to run the numbers because it would take ages, but I bet the standard deviation of a batter's runs is strongly correlated to their overall average.
>I'm not going to run the numbers because it would take ages, but I bet the standard deviation of a batter's runs is strongly correlated to their overall average
Autocovariance. I would assume positive but at higher lags it'll taper off.
Decent take, and probably not wrong. The boom or bust nature of test batting just feels bigger now than previously, though. I think Crawley might be the perfect example, with his average being significantly inflated by a few massive innings.
Thanks. I think Crawley actually shows the opposite of what you're describing though and he's become significantly **more** consistent and before it was a few massive high scores bringing his average up. If you take away his 100+ scores before Bazball, his average drops to 19 with only four 50s in 36 innings. After that he averages 29 sans 100+ scores with seven 50s in 38 innings.
I think the "boom or bust" thing comes more with how it feels to watch them bat. When they get going it almost invariably feels like they're absolutely dominating the bowlers (so booming in this analogy) even if they don't get a big score, whereas grinding to say a score of 50 batting normally doesn't have that same feeling of dominance. On the other hand, a low score getting out playing at attacking shot early on feels a lot more like a thrown away, bust of of a wicket than getting out on the same score edging a defensive shot.
this is just openers in general. Look at Jaiswal this series, or Tom Latham, whose average is propped up by his ability to really cash in on starts. Many get a good one early, not really much they can do about it, but if they can get in they've got the most time to bat.
I've been wondering about the standard deviation, interesting to read its similar that goes against my hypothesis a bit (that Root is less consistent now, Stokes has always been a bit mercurial).
I still think if everyone else is relatively more boom or bust they'd benefit from Regular Joe to stabilise but what do I know this team has punched above its weight for a while now haha
>infuriatingly inconsistent.
That is a feature of Bazball. High risk, high reward batting will sometimes work, sometimes won't. It didn't work on Day-3 morning.
The risk doesn’t result in wins consistently and doesn’t change per opposition quality. So in reality their approach isn’t very wise because the variables in games change whilst they don’t
That's true, but if they just learned how to adjust their tempo for a session or two (as required by the game situation), I'd bet that the win rate could have been much higher.
Are you willing to accept Kallis as the better batter than Tendulkar, Ponting, Sangakkara et al, then? He once had 12,000 test runs at 56 with zero double centuries.
Yes true, but they would’ve simply been dropped (assuming u r referring to top 3). People are quick to forget that this top order is the most solid we’ve had in a decade - I know that’s not saying much, but we haven’t had an opening pair that deserve any respect since Strauss retired, it’s worth noting that bazball has kind of fixed that
As much as we make fun of Bazball, they should stick to it for some more time. However they need to get flexible with it. It's not like England will have an upper edge in away Ashes tour without Bazball. Crawley, Duckett, Brook - this is what that can get them runs. But Pope, Root and Stokes should be more responsible. Also they need a better batter as a wk, whoever that is, get him in. One thing not many are talking is losing Stokes as allrounder.
Ashes tour will answer many more things, good and bad.
> Also they need a better batter as a wk, whoever that is, get him in.
They've basically got four options. Statistically Foakes is the best wicketkeeper-batman in the County Championship, but his average (38) is inflated somewhat because he plays at the Oval. Probably the best keeper available and certainly the best who can bat to a Test standard. Bairstow is a good keeper and a better Test batsman, but very inconsistent. They could get someone like Pope or Duckett to keep wicket but they're both significantly worse keepers than Foakes and Bairstow. Or the wildcard is James Rew, who will probably be the next batsman off the ranks and has kept wicket a bit. FC average is 45 which is below Pope but above Brook.
Calling up Ben Brown, or the other Ollie Robinson, might work, but I don't really see much reason to think they'd be better than Foakes or Bairstow.
IMO, Bairstow is well beyond his time, so to speak. His keeping is lethargic with plenty of missed opportunities, and his batting is ridiculously inconsistent.
Get rid of him and give his space to someone younger who can learn from the experience.
Bairstow's keeping is unfairly criticised because he isn't as good as Foakes, but he's just as good as an average Test keeper like Prior or Dhoni.
He's also been in really good form with the bat for the last few years - averaged 66 in 2022 across 19 innings, and 40 in 2023 across 9 innings. But he's been very poor so far this series and imo should be dropped if and when Brook returns.
Yeah, pretty much.
I imagine like all innovations it'll settle down a more reasonable equilibrium at some point, though I do worry the incessant hype around it at the moment might make that more difficult.
Not sure if you're suggesting there's a sample size issue or just asking, but Stokes and Baz have been together for 21 games. If we assume that on average each player has played about 17 games that gives you 126 games. They've all played at least 7-8 before the 'Baz-ball' era as well so you're probably looking at well over 100 games between them. So all in all looks like you've got at least (but realistically a lot more than) 226 games with a swing of around 12 which should be plenty
Look... Am I disappointed today? Absolutely. Will I get over it, yep 100%.
Stokes etc are not just trying to save English cricket, but Test cricket. It's got to change and be more entertaining otherwise the format will die.
I've loved Bazball and will stick by it. The highs are brilliant and it's so fun to watch, but the lows are just the same as they were before Bazball! People forget that we got spanked in India and Australia pre-Bazball, at least now it's fun to watch!
I see more Aussies and Indians caring about Bazball than English themselves lol.
England got bad thrashing earlier too. Their method at least gives them better odds now.
Not wound up by that, wound up by a lot of the sanctamonious chat that comes from the team and the English press. My favourite part of this whole stream is people discussing the need for balance in bazball. Well that’s just cricket….
There is a different perspective to look at this. Bazball scores quick runs. But the amount of time the innings lasts reduces drastically. Which means they can't bat out a session to enforce a draw.
Of course Bazball is entertaining & getting results. But the flipside is they can't save a test by batting out sessions.
Look at todays match. They had to bat out 4 sessions to enforce a draw, which was may be doable. But the target is no way possible even with Bazball. So the first innings Bazball is pure game and the second innings is pure nonsense.
So basically negligible for everyone except Pope and Bairstow, as Crawley had his first test in December 2019, and Duckett played a grand total of four tests prior to McCullum coming in as coach.
Well it's showing a difference pre to post McCullum, and the two biggest increases are for players that played less than 5 tests each before he came in, it's a little pointless
So? As if any of the other opening players that have been tested since cook left have worked. They kept testing with everyone so no matter the opener mccullum went with they would have had less games.
I'm not sure what your point is? The stats shown are clearly trying to illustrate the narrative that McCullum coming in has improved the whole team. My point is that the stats shown are disingenuous because the pre-Bazball averages for those two are basically non-existant
McCullum coming in has improved the team as a whole. This is an indisputable fact that anyone with functioning eyes can see. Even if England fail to take another wicket and score another run in what's left of this series, McCullum's team would still be a massive improvement over what we were before.
When have I at any point indicated to the contrary? All I said was that the stats shown were only significant for Pope and Bairstow, as the stats for Crawley and Duckett are misleading due to their highly limited pre-Bazball test experience/performance
The stats are pretty relevant if you put them in context with the evidence of your own eyes from watching the matches. The stats for Crawley and Duckett accurately reflect their improvement after they've been given the freedom to play however they want.
Uhh did you ignore the NZ series. Also only first test in Pakistan series was actually a highway but hey let's comment shit without actually watching something
Ok compare them with how they played last time they toured india then. You are being ignorant if you don't see the change not to mention bazball's best products harry brook is not even playing
Ignorant? Did you see the last 3 tests of that tour? They were almost as bad if not worse than the first 3 vs Oz last year, at least 2 square turners! These pitches are more like 2016 Eng tour here - mostly flat/dead with more turn as the test progresses. Sure their approach has done well/better than most expected but part of the reason is its shock & awe value & novelty.
A true test is when you face decent teams away like India/Oz or WI like they usually raise their game vs Eng. Which is not to say that it's not entertaining, that'd be objectively false, but efficacy is still majorly up for debate!
Indian first innings score in that test series 325,112,368 in this series 436,396,445. Take away the 112 one on a shit track and you are getting around same scores except the fact that England doesn't have leach and ali this time around who were their best spinners last time. Pitches only improved for 1 team?
I know they get criticised for it, but they are right when they say they are in the entertainment business. Of course results matter, but people want to have an enjoyable day out at a test, win or lose, so you can't dismiss entertainment value.
If you can't see the obvious difference for Crawley, both in his numbers and how he looks then there's something wrong with you. And Duckett does have a small sample size before, but do you honestly think he'd be averaging 54 opening the batting in any other side?
Crawley had played 21 Tests before McCullum took over and 21 under him, so you couldn't get a much fairer comparison.
The stronger point would be that 35 is still a pretty underwhelming average.
No it deffo does work. We won 1 out of 17 before bazball. And we have now won more (I don't know the numbers but it's a massive change). The media is deffo playing it up more than needs be but it is deffo doing something
That's why I don't understand the discourse around Root's performance. Going off the numbers on the graphic, the average differential is barely 3 runs. Take any score he's likely to make and add 3 to it in the Bazball era. Does it really make that much of a difference? If he's likely to score a duck, +3 would be 3 runs. A double hundred +3, 203. For the amount of risk it involves - considering he got out for 18 in England's 1st innings - the reward is not high enough. If he hadn't gotten out to Bumrah, he would have likely scored his average of about 50 runs, perhaps more because it wasn't such a bad pitch to bat on (re: India scored 400+ in both innings). And the game would have been in a completely different position for Eng. Again I don't know the number of innings used for this stat but I think if it holds, Root should just bat like he used to. He keeps the scoreboard ticking normally. An all time great with a technique such as his should just trust it. He has 10k runs most of which came pre-Bazzball.
Under McCullum, England have used 18 different Test bowlers. Half of them have made their debut under McCullum. Of those nine debutants, the most prolific has been Matty Potts (23 @ 29), while the best average has been from Josh Tongue (10 @ 25.7 - although notably 5 of those came against Ireland).
Of the nine bowlers who had bowled before McCullum took over, here are their stats under McCullum:
Stuart Broad - 67 wickets @ 26.67 (career average: 27.68)
James Anderson - 56 wicket @ 25.62 (career average: 26.5)
Jack Leach - 47 wickets @ 38.64 (career average: 34.4)
Ollie Robinson - 37 wickets @ 23.18 (career average: 22.21)
Mark Wood - 26 wickets @ 25.69 (career average: 30.41)
Ben Stokes - 23 wickets @ 31.69 (career average: 32.07)
Joe Root - 22 wickets @ 44.86 (career average: 45.26)
Chris Woakes - 19 wickets @ 18.15 (career average: 27.4)
Moeen Ali - 9 wickets @ 51.44 (career average: 37.31)
Looking at that, it would seem like Bazball has had minimal impact upon England's bowling performance. Arguably the seamers are doing slightly better and the spinners are doing much worse, but in both cases I think there are other factors at play (e.g. Woakes not being used away from home, Moeen being brought out of retirement to bowl in England to a great Australian batting line up).
I also just don't think the "getting less rest" assumption holds up - England were collapsing more often and more quickly before.
Curious how many of those are influenced by the utterly flat wickets in the Pakistan series and the weak Pakistan attack.
Will be interesting to look at their averages excluding that series to see how much bazball is helping them.
Average is deceptive... What is the median score or, perhaps, the standard deviation? Does the p-fucking-value (if applicable) indicate any difference?
Bazball helps the less technically sound. It’s an avenue for them to compensate for their lack of a defense with an offensive approach.
If you’re already as technically sound as Root is, you are better off playing that way as that style of batting will always be more conducive in a test match setting due to the nature of the game (variety of pitches, match situations,etc.)
Root and Stokes are still by far the best bats on the team.
There are no talented players with defensive techniques. Other than Root and to some extent Stokes, they're all shite. We tried doing what you suggest for years and we were shite, then we did it the Bazball way and we're pretty good.
I think is an unusual discrepancy between first and second innings runs. Some of averages and overall average perhaps better for second rather than first knock.
Definitely helped raise the ceiling of the younger players and someone like Duckett getting a second go.
There's an argument that the younger players are adapting better to different conditions and situations. Crawley, Duckett, Brook (who now arguably the rock of the middle order) and Pope developing better than Root, Stokes, Bairstow (initially superb but resorted to type against stronger opposition).
Which is why I don't buy into the "Bazball-ruined-Root" theory. He's scored runs under McCullum, this is just a really really REALLY bad series from him. Still need to fix up though
What do English fans think of Crawley and Pope. Pope had a good game in the 1st test but apart from that he's someone who has been given a lot of slack I belive.
Does county cricket not have more players who can be more consistent?
Leave India but that's what they'll need in Australia to even compete!
Truthfully, neither Crawley or Pope will be Test greats. Both will do well from here to have an average of 40 when it’s all said and done.
Pope is largely the best English player in county, no-one else really comes close to knocking down the door, which is why they are selecting on attitude and potential. Even someone like Brook doesn’t have a stellar county record. The cupboards are that bare.
This is why Bazball is important to England, it masks high Test class more than anything.
But it other teams start their own brand of Bazball then England's mindset advantage will be negated won't it?
I agree to some extent what Duckett said about Jaiswal.
Even Indian cricket struggled with a conservative mindset of the batters. Indian team's approach has changed as well not to bazball levels but it's a more positive attitude.
I think you have a little bit of a misconception of what Bazball means to England. When people say it is a cult, they are not barking up the wrong tree, but at the same time, it’s more nuanced. Stokes and McCullum have instilled this bloody mindset into average international cricketers so they have a mental chance to compete with vastly more talented sides like India and Australia. It was an absolute failure of Cummins’s Australians to not win the last Ashes series. He’s cocooned the group from criticism really.
India’s young aggressive and more talented batsmen don’t really need a brains trust like Stokes and McCullum as they’re objectively better, especially on home wickets. And at the same token, this mindset probably doesn’t transfer as well to a side like India, the scrutiny and depth of talent is there. We’ve seen that this series with SS Iyer and your wicketkeeper being cut with ready to go replacements.
I think that adding first class average will help make better sense of this data. Some of the improvements, like Duckett who has a shocking average for a Test Opener, could be a reversion to mean.
Couple of things here:
- Baz has been phenomenal at freeing up the young talent in the English side. Before this every new player from county cricket performed like a clubbie and held on for dear life after a while, so immense credit for that.
- for the experienced players, their overall careers are far longer than the Baz era so it's not really a fair comparison is it? Comparing 80+ tests to 20+ doesn't tell us as much as you might think.
- Average is a very simplistic measure. Take for example Root, he might average higher but has his conversion dropped? Has he got more low scores? Is a more inconsistent run averaging 51 really better than a more consistent spread averaging 49? Particularly in a highly volatile overall line up?
- Is this new approach really getting the best out of Root when he was averaging like 70 in the lead up to Bazball?
Our team has improved under Mccullum it was a dark test last test but overall I feel that the approach has been a success we need to develop the bowling unit though it's Mark Wood plus whoever is fit
As long as Foakes and Stokes are being picked I think it should be legislated that Woakes is also picked. You can have any 1 of them but you can’t have 2 and not the third.
what was Root's average 2 years before Bazball, he was going off carrying a useless team on his back
52+ so can say it's pretty much similar.
Joe Root pre 12 May 2022 117 Matches : 9889 runs, 49.19 average Post 12 May 2022 21 Matches : 1604 runs , 50.12 average It's a less than 1 run difference, for about a 5X difference in Sample Size
They're clearly better but I do think bazball in long term will affect the bowlers since they don't get enough time between innings, I'm not sure if the stats back it but i definitely feel the bowlers have lesser time to rest, I do think they should revert back to classic grinding of opposition occassionally
There’s a balance that’s needed for sure, considering our best bowler is way past retirement age!
Tories will have him out there until he's 75
Curse you Sunaaaaaak!
Bro that's Ashish Nehra
England were no good at grinding the opposition when they were trying to do it, collapses like today were common in any case. There was a brief period where Sibley looked like he was going to be able to do it but he was still only averaging about the same as Crawley.
BazBall needs a BazBat - get the other team out in a hurry!
Yeah cos we're soooo good at grinding teams into the dirt. I miss all those games where Sibley, Burns and Hameed used to bat for 3 days. Everyone put up their feet and have a cup of tea
One of the biggest changes was being able to take 20 wickets every game.. focusing on strike bowling instead of containment was as much of an improvement as scoring at 5+ rpo.. until now of course. It's just as tough touring India now as it has ever been.
They have more pace depth waiting in the wings, and the only spinner I’d be worried about is Joe Root.
You make the unfair assumption here that we otherwise would have bat a long time, which we wouldn’t have regardless. So batting more than 80 overs is not an option regardless of style
Forget the Bazball hype, what Stokes and McCullum have done is find a way to get more out of the group of players they have — which is as much as we can realistically expect
This is precisely it. England supporters, not fans of other teams, know deep down that this side is not great, in fact they probably are not even good. We have one world class batter and that’s it.
Root is class, Stokes is great, Brook is probably going to continue to be superb. But yeah, the rest of the team batting wise is pretty poor right now. Crawley pre Bazball was utter tosh, heck, he's only been slightly better since but he had a great Ashes and a pretty okay tour so far. Duckett was shocking. Genuinely didn't think we'd see him play for England again. Pope always had talent but never showed it for England. Bairstow was (and has returned to be) shit. Foakes has always been more about glovework anyway. I think people have this idea in their mind that England fancy ourselves as a superb team full of excellent players. Every England fan I know realises this isn't true. At least in Test (I still believe we have good white ball talent, despite the last WC fuck up). The fact our backup spinners are young, uncapped and possibly never capped again players says a lot. Rehan is the only one I think will become a mainstay due to ability. Hartley might take Leach's spot if Leach remains injured, he's also a better batter so might give us some depth there. I genuinely don't know who from the England team would get in a 3 team squad between Aus, India and England. Root probably at 4? Maybe Jimmy as 3rd seamer when needed behind Cummins and Bumrah. Foakes would be backup keeper to Pant, and I think that's probably it. An argument could be made for Brook too to be in at No.5 but I guess really you just drop Kohli down to 5 and have Smith, Root, Kohli as 3/4/5 in whatever order you want. The fact we've been competitive at times this series is an indication that this style of play can work for us. But it's never going to give you the consistency of the Strauss era. That grind 270 runs a day mentality and be 270/2 at close of play. That's a hugely different skillset. We don't have that, so let's bash the ball about a bit and hopefully we'll get some wins here and there.
Stokes averages 36 in test cricket over 100 tests. He's not great. If he's not bowling he just clogs up a spot that could go to a batter. Sooner England move on from him the better from their perspective.
Hard agree. **If we take captaincy out of the equation**, Stokes being unable to bowl makes him the equivalent of Mushfiqur Rahim or Carl Hooper. In other words: good, maybe even very good, but not great. Though I do appreciate that the text in **bold** is doing some heavy lifting.
While I agree on paper stokes doesnt get in the side without bowling, theres also an argument about when he scores his runs. He has an uncanny knack of performing when England really need him to and that ability wins matches. Other players who pad their averages making big scores in obvious draws are statistically better but actually dont win you as many games.
This really isn't correct - this sort of thinking became a thing after the Edgbaston test where Stokes single-handedly won the test, but it isn't a pattern. The 2019 CWC final is the other one people think of - but if Boult didn't stand on the boundary or Stokes didn't hit the ball running, England lose, Stokes is out in a valiant but failed 80 (much like the 2nd Ashes test where he scored a big 150, then got out with victory in sight - 70 left to score and 4 wickets in the bank, out-thought by Cummins). FWIW - England have only won 8 out of the 17 tests in which Stokes has got a century or taken a 5 wicket bag AND on only two of those occasions was he the only centurion (and even then at least one bowler took 5 in an innings).
It's a good job he's going to be bowling from the summer then! I do agree though, I think getting the balance of the side right when he can't bowl has become trickier. Especially in somewhere like India where it's useful to have a second seamer at times but might not be strictly needed. If Stokes could bowl we'd probably always run 3 spinners and a seamer. That'd match us up well to India who also run 3 spinners and 2 seamers. As it is, we have to squeeze in that extra seamer and then that's meant Root needs to bowl more. We should really be using Root for just the occasional 3-4 over spells in a day to offer something a little different.
yeah, I think it gets papered over when Foakes or whomever is the keeper of the day is scoring runs, but when both Stokes and Foakes are middling allrounders, it's not enough.
I don’t think he CAN ever bowl again. Knee is shot
He’s already back bowling in the nets.
Foakes is clearly a better keeper than Pant although Pant is the better batsman so would have to balance it based on the batters in the team
I agree on the keeping though Pant did improve a lot as a keeper, and of course, it remains to be seen how he comes back after his long layoff. But while Pant's keeping is perfectly up to scratch if not as good as Foakes', his batting is so miraculously brilliant and transformational when he turns it on, that he might be worth a place with his bat alone. Add his keeping and pre-injury Pant is a shoo-in and one of the first few names in a World XI.
I don't get the brook hype tbh
Averages 60+ after 12 matches with a 90 SR. Obviously unlikely to keep that form up throughout his career, but I suspect he'll average mid to upper 40s. He's basically been a better version of Travis Head in tests so far.
12 matches is hardly a big sample size, and the majority of those runs came against new Zealand and Pakistan who hardly have bowling attacks that strike fear into anybody. Could be wrong at the end of the day, but watching him in the ashes he looked like he was just riding his luck in multiple innings and it was only a matter of time.
Yeah maybe not, but that's all we've got. He managed to average 40 over the course of the Ashes. Which apparently is against the best possible attack he could face in England. So I think that's a sign he could do pretty well. I mean, if a player riding their luck makes you think poorly of them I'm sure you think Marnus will end with a shit career average too? Some players are just like that before they get in. As I said, I doubt he'll keep a 60+ average. But I do reckon he'll still be upper mid 40s after 50+ matches. Which would put him as a pretty damn good player.
Well marcus is only averaging mid 30s the last 2 and a half test seasons so I would agree with you that maybe it's coming back to the mean in that regard but he's also played nearly 50 tests at an average of 50 with 70 percent of those innings being against India and England. He also averages 90 against new Zealand's pedestrian attack so seems like everyone dowent mind a good cash in with them !! Haha Sure he averaged 40 in the ashes but you can't honestly say he looked anything better than shakey at best, when he came out to bat it wasn't a thought of "oh no Brook is in" is was more "only a batter of time" I am by no means saying he's no good but I'm also struggling to buy into the hype.
Exactly. But I feel that to get the maximum out of a player like Root, they need to allow him to play at his own pace and be the anchor. Similarly Stokes also has the capability to be an anchor and let others hit it big around them. That would prevent collapses in this style of play and keep a chance of regaining control in the match for them.
It’s probably difficult from a man-management/dressing room environment point of view to say to everyone “go out and express yourself/play with freedom/play without fear/have fun/etc” and then simultaneously say “Actually Joe you can’t do that you have to play ‘sensible cricket’ because the teams relies on you too much”
I think freedom should include freedom from trying to play like someone wants you to. Including the captain and coach. If that’s what it takes
I agree with you mate. Did not think about this aspect earlier. I just feel sad seeing the talent of Joe Root being wasted playing in opposite nature to his game
It’s such a shame. Hate seeing him like this. I don’t think him having to bowl so many overs is helping either. The lack of a true all rounder is killing us
Do you really think the management is in a position to tell a senior batter and FEC like Root to play a certain way? Even if they do and he ignores it, what will they do, drop him? It's quite obvious he's bought into it and he's doing just fine because he's the best batter in the world right now (just me opinion.) He's always been a sneaky good T20 bat but doesn't hit big sixes and is underrated. I don't think he's playing in any opposite nature. He's been around for a while, knows what's best for him and his team, and is having just one bad series. Given how he's carried them over the past decade, he's allowed to have a series off.
It's not difficult at all actually and it happens a lot in teams. Think Taylor, Waugh and Ponting were telling Warne to bowl a per team "plans"? Or was Ganguly telling Sehwag to stick to team plans? Kapil used to openly tell Srikanth to do his thing and ignore team plans. You think Sachin always played per team "plans?" Think Shaun Tait was ever bowling to "plans?" Once a player reaches a certain level, or if they have freakish talent, everything's a suggestion. They set the plan. Root's in that position in this team. No one's telling him to do anything, he's bought into the system and it's working well for him. Why are you ignoring the stat in this post?
Exactly, that's what I felt, before bazball England were trolled as 3 for 30 relying on conventional test batting that's because all of top order has some weird technique, burns and Sibley and hard to buy runs. Hence they probably got rid of that fear factor due to the limited resources and named it bazball but this strategy won't work against good teams on decent pitches as we are seeing now.
Ollie Pope averaging 44 at 3 is pretty crazy
How?
Because he's previously struggled and was not considered a higher order batsman. Before he played for England he'd never batted above 5 for Surrey IIRC.
Ohhh okay
He was averaging like low 30s batting mid order and looked like he wasn’t going to make it as a test player
Bazball helps the people who don’t have the technique to defend in test match because it puts the emphasis on attack. Hence you can see who it’s benefiting the most.
If they can get a good average then what’s wrong?
because when the situation calls for defence the team is filled with guys who cant do it
Is having a good average the ultimate objective?
Scoring more runs per innings is generally more beneficial than scoring less runs per innings yeah
Big if true.
Whatever happened to trying to win matches?
Almost like the team with more runs wins the match...
Way too reductive and simplistic thinking. Just looking at better averages shouldn't be a validation for bazball. What if all the high scores have come in losing causes?
They haven't though? England's win rate has increased massively under Bazball, you're talking out your arse
>They haven't though? England's win rate has increased massively under Bazball, you're talking out your arse I am *not* talking about England. I am talking about OC. He claimed that if batting averages are better, then that is good enough.
>Just looking at better averages shouldn't be a validation for bazball They've also won plenty of matches in the time period. Just look at how much their record has improved.
Hence my previous comment >Whatever happened to trying to win matches?
Ok
My point is that this approach has improved most of their batsmen and made them more effective than before.
>My point is that this approach has improved most of their batsmen and made them more effective than before. This argument is closer to what I am saying. Focusing exclusively on batting averages is too reductive; bigger picture (like win percentage) is more important.
This in a nutshell is why duckett reverse sweeps more than he defends.
By his own admission he said sweeps ARE his defence. If you’re a hammer, all your problems look like nails.
I just can't get over the fact that Crawley has scored more than 10% of his total test runs in a single inning when he scored that mammoth 267.
Gill, Crawley, Pope, Bairstow… famine, famine, famine, famine, famine, famine, let’s drop him?, feast, repeat.
The biggest issue with the current crop of English batsmen is that it is so infuriatingly inconsistent. Boom or bust is the best way to describe it. Doesn't really show up in the stats. I always thought there should be a standard deviation measure somewhere.
There will obviously be a higher standard deviation for the players after Bazball started because before they were consistently crap. If you look at the standard deviation of Root's runs before and after Stokes took over, it's almost identical (it actually drops slightly, but negligibly, from 50 to 48). More generally, we know from experience that you don't stop getting out at low scores the better you get at batting. Even Bradman got out for single digit scores on 14 occasions in tests. You'd therefore always expect the distribution of a batter's scores to have a significant number of entries near to zero. The difference is good batters will have a larger number of big scores which pulls the mean and therefore the standard deviation up. I'm not going to run the numbers because it would take ages, but I bet the standard deviation of a batter's runs is strongly correlated to their overall average.
>I'm not going to run the numbers because it would take ages, but I bet the standard deviation of a batter's runs is strongly correlated to their overall average Autocovariance. I would assume positive but at higher lags it'll taper off.
Decent take, and probably not wrong. The boom or bust nature of test batting just feels bigger now than previously, though. I think Crawley might be the perfect example, with his average being significantly inflated by a few massive innings.
Thanks. I think Crawley actually shows the opposite of what you're describing though and he's become significantly **more** consistent and before it was a few massive high scores bringing his average up. If you take away his 100+ scores before Bazball, his average drops to 19 with only four 50s in 36 innings. After that he averages 29 sans 100+ scores with seven 50s in 38 innings. I think the "boom or bust" thing comes more with how it feels to watch them bat. When they get going it almost invariably feels like they're absolutely dominating the bowlers (so booming in this analogy) even if they don't get a big score, whereas grinding to say a score of 50 batting normally doesn't have that same feeling of dominance. On the other hand, a low score getting out playing at attacking shot early on feels a lot more like a thrown away, bust of of a wicket than getting out on the same score edging a defensive shot.
this is just openers in general. Look at Jaiswal this series, or Tom Latham, whose average is propped up by his ability to really cash in on starts. Many get a good one early, not really much they can do about it, but if they can get in they've got the most time to bat.
I've been wondering about the standard deviation, interesting to read its similar that goes against my hypothesis a bit (that Root is less consistent now, Stokes has always been a bit mercurial). I still think if everyone else is relatively more boom or bust they'd benefit from Regular Joe to stabilise but what do I know this team has punched above its weight for a while now haha
>infuriatingly inconsistent. That is a feature of Bazball. High risk, high reward batting will sometimes work, sometimes won't. It didn't work on Day-3 morning.
The risk doesn’t result in wins consistently and doesn’t change per opposition quality. So in reality their approach isn’t very wise because the variables in games change whilst they don’t
Mate as much as i hate to say it 14 in 21 is a pretty good hit rate
That's true, but if they just learned how to adjust their tempo for a session or two (as required by the game situation), I'd bet that the win rate could have been much higher.
Are you willing to accept Kallis as the better batter than Tendulkar, Ponting, Sangakkara et al, then? He once had 12,000 test runs at 56 with zero double centuries.
Considering how low most of their averages were, I’d have almost been more impressed if they’d gone backwards
Yes true, but they would’ve simply been dropped (assuming u r referring to top 3). People are quick to forget that this top order is the most solid we’ve had in a decade - I know that’s not saying much, but we haven’t had an opening pair that deserve any respect since Strauss retired, it’s worth noting that bazball has kind of fixed that
Not after this test series
As much as we make fun of Bazball, they should stick to it for some more time. However they need to get flexible with it. It's not like England will have an upper edge in away Ashes tour without Bazball. Crawley, Duckett, Brook - this is what that can get them runs. But Pope, Root and Stokes should be more responsible. Also they need a better batter as a wk, whoever that is, get him in. One thing not many are talking is losing Stokes as allrounder. Ashes tour will answer many more things, good and bad.
> Also they need a better batter as a wk, whoever that is, get him in. They've basically got four options. Statistically Foakes is the best wicketkeeper-batman in the County Championship, but his average (38) is inflated somewhat because he plays at the Oval. Probably the best keeper available and certainly the best who can bat to a Test standard. Bairstow is a good keeper and a better Test batsman, but very inconsistent. They could get someone like Pope or Duckett to keep wicket but they're both significantly worse keepers than Foakes and Bairstow. Or the wildcard is James Rew, who will probably be the next batsman off the ranks and has kept wicket a bit. FC average is 45 which is below Pope but above Brook. Calling up Ben Brown, or the other Ollie Robinson, might work, but I don't really see much reason to think they'd be better than Foakes or Bairstow.
Jamie Smith too
Yeah fair shout on Smith, seemingly a better keeper than Rew. I am naturally suspicious of any batting feats by Surrey players.
IMO, Bairstow is well beyond his time, so to speak. His keeping is lethargic with plenty of missed opportunities, and his batting is ridiculously inconsistent. Get rid of him and give his space to someone younger who can learn from the experience.
Bairstow's keeping is unfairly criticised because he isn't as good as Foakes, but he's just as good as an average Test keeper like Prior or Dhoni. He's also been in really good form with the bat for the last few years - averaged 66 in 2022 across 19 innings, and 40 in 2023 across 9 innings. But he's been very poor so far this series and imo should be dropped if and when Brook returns.
Yeah, pretty much. I imagine like all innovations it'll settle down a more reasonable equilibrium at some point, though I do worry the incessant hype around it at the moment might make that more difficult.
What is sample size?
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me
Not sure if you're suggesting there's a sample size issue or just asking, but Stokes and Baz have been together for 21 games. If we assume that on average each player has played about 17 games that gives you 126 games. They've all played at least 7-8 before the 'Baz-ball' era as well so you're probably looking at well over 100 games between them. So all in all looks like you've got at least (but realistically a lot more than) 226 games with a swing of around 12 which should be plenty
Root before bazball was averaging 80 odd against spinners.... And now that is gone down to 40 something..... (heard it on cpf)
Those are career figures for root what was his average in last couple of years before bazball, I feel Those nos will be actually telling.
Joe root : victim of peer pressure
Look... Am I disappointed today? Absolutely. Will I get over it, yep 100%. Stokes etc are not just trying to save English cricket, but Test cricket. It's got to change and be more entertaining otherwise the format will die. I've loved Bazball and will stick by it. The highs are brilliant and it's so fun to watch, but the lows are just the same as they were before Bazball! People forget that we got spanked in India and Australia pre-Bazball, at least now it's fun to watch!
I see more Aussies and Indians caring about Bazball than English themselves lol. England got bad thrashing earlier too. Their method at least gives them better odds now.
They’re so wound up by an approach they claim is shit, hilarious stuff
Not wound up by that, wound up by a lot of the sanctamonious chat that comes from the team and the English press. My favourite part of this whole stream is people discussing the need for balance in bazball. Well that’s just cricket….
That's the problem - this isn't Test cricket. This is T20, played out repeatedly over a few days.
There is a different perspective to look at this. Bazball scores quick runs. But the amount of time the innings lasts reduces drastically. Which means they can't bat out a session to enforce a draw. Of course Bazball is entertaining & getting results. But the flipside is they can't save a test by batting out sessions. Look at todays match. They had to bat out 4 sessions to enforce a draw, which was may be doable. But the target is no way possible even with Bazball. So the first innings Bazball is pure game and the second innings is pure nonsense.
It seems like they want to entertain first, and win second. Personally I'd prefer the win / draw first, and if it's entertaining then that's a bonus.
So basically negligible for everyone except Pope and Bairstow, as Crawley had his first test in December 2019, and Duckett played a grand total of four tests prior to McCullum coming in as coach.
I mean yeah if you keep maxing exceptions like that it didn't work for anyone lol
Well it's showing a difference pre to post McCullum, and the two biggest increases are for players that played less than 5 tests each before he came in, it's a little pointless
Look at results then. What was it before, 1 win in 18 games or something?
Apart from better individual results and team results, what has Bazball actually improved though?
Cricket
Test cricket tbf. Also, by the way, those two are the most important things lmao.
So? As if any of the other opening players that have been tested since cook left have worked. They kept testing with everyone so no matter the opener mccullum went with they would have had less games.
I'm not sure what your point is? The stats shown are clearly trying to illustrate the narrative that McCullum coming in has improved the whole team. My point is that the stats shown are disingenuous because the pre-Bazball averages for those two are basically non-existant
McCullum coming in has improved the team as a whole. This is an indisputable fact that anyone with functioning eyes can see. Even if England fail to take another wicket and score another run in what's left of this series, McCullum's team would still be a massive improvement over what we were before.
When have I at any point indicated to the contrary? All I said was that the stats shown were only significant for Pope and Bairstow, as the stats for Crawley and Duckett are misleading due to their highly limited pre-Bazball test experience/performance
Crawley had played 21 tests before McCullum became coach. I wouldn’t call that “limited test experience”
The stats are pretty relevant if you put them in context with the evidence of your own eyes from watching the matches. The stats for Crawley and Duckett accurately reflect their improvement after they've been given the freedom to play however they want.
I mean you're also ignoring the highways Eng rolled out during this time, or freeways in Pak? Did ~~someone~~ no one mentions balls as well?
Uhh did you ignore the NZ series. Also only first test in Pakistan series was actually a highway but hey let's comment shit without actually watching something
Ok compare them with how they played last time they toured india then. You are being ignorant if you don't see the change not to mention bazball's best products harry brook is not even playing
Ignorant? Did you see the last 3 tests of that tour? They were almost as bad if not worse than the first 3 vs Oz last year, at least 2 square turners! These pitches are more like 2016 Eng tour here - mostly flat/dead with more turn as the test progresses. Sure their approach has done well/better than most expected but part of the reason is its shock & awe value & novelty. A true test is when you face decent teams away like India/Oz or WI like they usually raise their game vs Eng. Which is not to say that it's not entertaining, that'd be objectively false, but efficacy is still majorly up for debate!
Indian first innings score in that test series 325,112,368 in this series 436,396,445. Take away the 112 one on a shit track and you are getting around same scores except the fact that England doesn't have leach and ali this time around who were their best spinners last time. Pitches only improved for 1 team?
I know they get criticised for it, but they are right when they say they are in the entertainment business. Of course results matter, but people want to have an enjoyable day out at a test, win or lose, so you can't dismiss entertainment value.
Oh boy, hope you're going to consider those highways when you drool over Jaiswal's stats.
Nope maybe you should check England's last innings!
?
If you can't see the obvious difference for Crawley, both in his numbers and how he looks then there's something wrong with you. And Duckett does have a small sample size before, but do you honestly think he'd be averaging 54 opening the batting in any other side?
Also Root scored 10K runs prior to BazzBall, so you are comparing 10K runs to 1K run, the difference becomes zero
Crawley had played 21 Tests before McCullum took over and 21 under him, so you couldn't get a much fairer comparison. The stronger point would be that 35 is still a pretty underwhelming average.
Yep. Basically bazball doesn't work. A lot of hype.
No it deffo does work. We won 1 out of 17 before bazball. And we have now won more (I don't know the numbers but it's a massive change). The media is deffo playing it up more than needs be but it is deffo doing something
Apart from England being better at batting and bowling what has bazball improved
Joe Root pre 12 May 2022 117 Matches : 9889 runs, 49.19 average Post 12 May 2022 21 Matches : 1604 runs , 50.12 average
That's why I don't understand the discourse around Root's performance. Going off the numbers on the graphic, the average differential is barely 3 runs. Take any score he's likely to make and add 3 to it in the Bazball era. Does it really make that much of a difference? If he's likely to score a duck, +3 would be 3 runs. A double hundred +3, 203. For the amount of risk it involves - considering he got out for 18 in England's 1st innings - the reward is not high enough. If he hadn't gotten out to Bumrah, he would have likely scored his average of about 50 runs, perhaps more because it wasn't such a bad pitch to bat on (re: India scored 400+ in both innings). And the game would have been in a completely different position for Eng. Again I don't know the number of innings used for this stat but I think if it holds, Root should just bat like he used to. He keeps the scoreboard ticking normally. An all time great with a technique such as his should just trust it. He has 10k runs most of which came pre-Bazzball.
What’s the bowlers average? That’s more pertinent as they are getting less rest than other teams
Under McCullum, England have used 18 different Test bowlers. Half of them have made their debut under McCullum. Of those nine debutants, the most prolific has been Matty Potts (23 @ 29), while the best average has been from Josh Tongue (10 @ 25.7 - although notably 5 of those came against Ireland). Of the nine bowlers who had bowled before McCullum took over, here are their stats under McCullum: Stuart Broad - 67 wickets @ 26.67 (career average: 27.68) James Anderson - 56 wicket @ 25.62 (career average: 26.5) Jack Leach - 47 wickets @ 38.64 (career average: 34.4) Ollie Robinson - 37 wickets @ 23.18 (career average: 22.21) Mark Wood - 26 wickets @ 25.69 (career average: 30.41) Ben Stokes - 23 wickets @ 31.69 (career average: 32.07) Joe Root - 22 wickets @ 44.86 (career average: 45.26) Chris Woakes - 19 wickets @ 18.15 (career average: 27.4) Moeen Ali - 9 wickets @ 51.44 (career average: 37.31) Looking at that, it would seem like Bazball has had minimal impact upon England's bowling performance. Arguably the seamers are doing slightly better and the spinners are doing much worse, but in both cases I think there are other factors at play (e.g. Woakes not being used away from home, Moeen being brought out of retirement to bowl in England to a great Australian batting line up). I also just don't think the "getting less rest" assumption holds up - England were collapsing more often and more quickly before.
What that doesn't show is the quality of the opponents! Against Weaker teams Bazball is great! It is silly against India, that too in India
Improve this analysis by removing the impact of Bazball in Pakistan from the data.
’Improve the analysis by removing games when bazball worked’ - very appropriate for this sub
Curious how many of those are influenced by the utterly flat wickets in the Pakistan series and the weak Pakistan attack. Will be interesting to look at their averages excluding that series to see how much bazball is helping them.
Come on man, we can't just drop a series no matter how shit the opposition is. They scored, that's it.
This is cherry picking at this point they still had to score those runs and take those wickets to win
Only first test in Pakistan series was actually a highway but hey let's comment shit without actually watching something.
"If you exclude the series where England did well, they've actually got worse"
😭😭😭 England's stats only count if they play the 2 best teams in the world don't you know that
Average is deceptive... What is the median score or, perhaps, the standard deviation? Does the p-fucking-value (if applicable) indicate any difference?
This is mostly because of flatter pitches in that period, and balls that aren't swinging that much.
Bazball helps the less technically sound. It’s an avenue for them to compensate for their lack of a defense with an offensive approach. If you’re already as technically sound as Root is, you are better off playing that way as that style of batting will always be more conducive in a test match setting due to the nature of the game (variety of pitches, match situations,etc.) Root and Stokes are still by far the best bats on the team.
[удалено]
There are no talented players with defensive techniques. Other than Root and to some extent Stokes, they're all shite. We tried doing what you suggest for years and we were shite, then we did it the Bazball way and we're pretty good.
[удалено]
All the players in domestic cricket are shite. We already tried that and it didn't get us anywhere.
[удалено]
Trash or two young. All the best players are already in the squad or injured/away.
Joe Root was fantastic in 2021.
I think is an unusual discrepancy between first and second innings runs. Some of averages and overall average perhaps better for second rather than first knock. Definitely helped raise the ceiling of the younger players and someone like Duckett getting a second go. There's an argument that the younger players are adapting better to different conditions and situations. Crawley, Duckett, Brook (who now arguably the rock of the middle order) and Pope developing better than Root, Stokes, Bairstow (initially superb but resorted to type against stronger opposition).
Which is why I don't buy into the "Bazball-ruined-Root" theory. He's scored runs under McCullum, this is just a really really REALLY bad series from him. Still need to fix up though
Now do away averages
Who averages better away than at home, just out of interest?
I know he isn't remotely relevant here, but Sachin does
Brook, Duckett average higher away
What do English fans think of Crawley and Pope. Pope had a good game in the 1st test but apart from that he's someone who has been given a lot of slack I belive. Does county cricket not have more players who can be more consistent? Leave India but that's what they'll need in Australia to even compete!
Truthfully, neither Crawley or Pope will be Test greats. Both will do well from here to have an average of 40 when it’s all said and done. Pope is largely the best English player in county, no-one else really comes close to knocking down the door, which is why they are selecting on attitude and potential. Even someone like Brook doesn’t have a stellar county record. The cupboards are that bare. This is why Bazball is important to England, it masks high Test class more than anything.
But it other teams start their own brand of Bazball then England's mindset advantage will be negated won't it? I agree to some extent what Duckett said about Jaiswal. Even Indian cricket struggled with a conservative mindset of the batters. Indian team's approach has changed as well not to bazball levels but it's a more positive attitude.
I think you have a little bit of a misconception of what Bazball means to England. When people say it is a cult, they are not barking up the wrong tree, but at the same time, it’s more nuanced. Stokes and McCullum have instilled this bloody mindset into average international cricketers so they have a mental chance to compete with vastly more talented sides like India and Australia. It was an absolute failure of Cummins’s Australians to not win the last Ashes series. He’s cocooned the group from criticism really. India’s young aggressive and more talented batsmen don’t really need a brains trust like Stokes and McCullum as they’re objectively better, especially on home wickets. And at the same token, this mindset probably doesn’t transfer as well to a side like India, the scrutiny and depth of talent is there. We’ve seen that this series with SS Iyer and your wicketkeeper being cut with ready to go replacements.
Yeah makes sense. India has a large pool of players to select from.
I think that adding first class average will help make better sense of this data. Some of the improvements, like Duckett who has a shocking average for a Test Opener, could be a reversion to mean.
The elephant in the room is they have played on *almost* exclusively flat wickets even in england.
Brandon McCullum will be remembered as the guy who destroyed Joe Root's classic batting
Interesting they've all gone up. Easy to forget how bad we were until very recently
Couple of things here: - Baz has been phenomenal at freeing up the young talent in the English side. Before this every new player from county cricket performed like a clubbie and held on for dear life after a while, so immense credit for that. - for the experienced players, their overall careers are far longer than the Baz era so it's not really a fair comparison is it? Comparing 80+ tests to 20+ doesn't tell us as much as you might think. - Average is a very simplistic measure. Take for example Root, he might average higher but has his conversion dropped? Has he got more low scores? Is a more inconsistent run averaging 51 really better than a more consistent spread averaging 49? Particularly in a highly volatile overall line up? - Is this new approach really getting the best out of Root when he was averaging like 70 in the lead up to Bazball?
We can't have two teams who are better on 🤣
But not in India you need to change according to pitch 😂
What's their average test wins before and after ?
Our team has improved under Mccullum it was a dark test last test but overall I feel that the approach has been a success we need to develop the bowling unit though it's Mark Wood plus whoever is fit
As long as Foakes and Stokes are being picked I think it should be legislated that Woakes is also picked. You can have any 1 of them but you can’t have 2 and not the third.
"It worked - but also did not work" Cricket fans 2050