creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

This is bazball though. It’s what he wants. We’ve set up a thrilling final day. Could win, could lose but it’s entertainment.

Alternatively we could have batted again and took the game away entirely and then spent a turgid day and a half trying to bowl them out on a relatively flat track (now) with them just blocking and everyone going to sleep.

We need to get used to this. This is exactly the philosophy. Do everything possible to win a test but that also means risking losing it too. And most of all offer entertainment.

I'm not against it...I'd have put them back in too!

Losing by trying to win intelligently is fine. Losing just because we're following an -ology less so and it'll need refinement, for example Crawley going all out with two overs left "Bazball" or "a tad injudicious" - no one will care if we win of course, so it's not an indictment of Bazball.

I think the argument is more that the philosophy is less about being 'dogmatic' and more about empowering players to perform to their maximum. So its less 'go and smash it or you're out' and more 'smash it if you want, block it if you want either way you'll still be picked win or lose so long as you do whatever you do with intent'.

The thing is he's no magician. Whatever you do and whatever you adopt you will lose sometimes. And ultimately because this is a different mindset people are going to jump on it - 'Bazball is to blame or has been found out'. But like I say playing test cricket at 3-4 an over and securing the match before trying to win it left us 1 win in 17. The fact is that with the players we have I think this is the only way we can be.

I would have batted....personally. But that's just not how they think. They also won't be scared of chasing anything. Doesn't mean they win. But won't bother them.

[Worthy4England]

Well, yes and there's clearly been improvement. It's difficult to judge how much until you're in a couple of years where you have India and Aus away (as you observed about Brook) - which were half of the defeats over that period. There's also been some change in personnel. Just before that run, we'd won 9 out of 12...

I picked one test at random v Australia (1st test) - we had Burns, Hameed, Malan, Buttler in the top 7 - so there's almost a 50% change in the batting department (and there've been changes since as we opened with Lees in that test).

Overall we're looking a lot more settled and have a lot more belief, I'm not sure if we had a similar line-up to some during the losing run, whether the Bazball would work as well...

[BWFC_Insane]

Well, yes and there's clearly been improvement. It's difficult to judge how much until you're in a couple of years where you have India and Aus away (as you observed about Brook) - which were half of the defeats over that period. There's also been some change in personnel. Just before that run, we'd won 9 out of 12...

I picked one test at random v Australia (1st test) - we had Burns, Hameed, Malan, Buttler in the top 7 - so there's almost a 50% change in the batting department (and there've been changes since as we opened with Lees in that test).

Overall we're looking a lot more settled and have a lot more belief, I'm not sure if we had a similar line-up to some during the losing run, whether the Bazball would work as well...

The players we're playing with now though are almost all ones universally written off. Bar maybe Brook. We weren't sitting there under Sliverwood saying 'there are all these great batsmen out there and he's just messing it up' we bemoaned the fact we had no test batsmen.

Crawley universally deemed not good enough. Nobody wanted to give Duckett another go. Bairstow was an LBW waiting to happen. Pope doing nowt. I think its harsh to say its down to selection.

The approach has obviously completely transformed us. And NZ were a miles better side than we were prior to Baz and now aren't. So its also IMHO unfair to suggest we've not had tests. NZ, Pakistan away one off against India. We've played good sides and won or in Pakistan made history.

We were utterly hapless before. The worst test side I can remember even going back to the dark 80's - we were shocking.

We now aren't. Its not exactly traditional but its working. Will it work all the time? No. But I'd take where we are now every day over the dross Silverwood managed to dish up. And it was utter dross.

[TANGODANCER]

Proper cricket...

[Worthy4England]

Well, yes and there's clearly been improvement. It's difficult to judge how much until you're in a couple of years where you have India and Aus away (as you observed about Brook) - which were half of the defeats over that period. There's also been some change in personnel. Just before that run, we'd won 9 out of 12...

I picked one test at random v Australia (1st test) - we had Burns, Hameed, Malan, Buttler in the top 7 - so there's almost a 50% change in the batting department (and there've been changes since as we opened with Lees in that test).

Overall we're looking a lot more settled and have a lot more belief, I'm not sure if we had a similar line-up to some during the losing run, whether the Bazball would work as well...

The players we're playing with now though are almost all ones universally written off. Bar maybe Brook. We weren't sitting there under Sliverwood saying 'there are all these great batsmen out there and he's just messing it up' we bemoaned the fact we had no test batsmen.

Crawley universally deemed not good enough. Nobody wanted to give Duckett another go. Bairstow was an LBW waiting to happen. Pope doing nowt. I think its harsh to say its down to selection.

The approach has obviously completely transformed us. And NZ were a miles better side than we were prior to Baz and now aren't. So its also IMHO unfair to suggest we've not had tests. NZ, Pakistan away one off against India. We've played good sides and won or in Pakistan made history.

We were utterly hapless before. The worst test side I can remember even going back to the dark 80's - we were shocking.

We now aren't. Its not exactly traditional but its working. Will it work all the time? No. But I'd take where we are now every day over the dross Silverwood managed to dish up. And it was utter dross.

Up front - we were hapless under Silverwood (COVID now all but forgotten). I'm glad he's gone and I don't want him back. I'm happy with the way Bazball is going. Nothing more than I enjoy than winning sides. I don't think you can minimise how often our teams get gubbed in India and Aus - both 5 test series - India were in the top 2 sides undoubtedly (along with NZ) and Australia away isn't a happy hunting ground for us.

Crawley - still not sure he's good enough...He averaged 23 last season - 6 lower than the prior season, he's pushing 30 for this season (5 matches)...He hasn't had a "miracle renaissance." because of Bazball. It's just been noticed less.

Duckett had a go in 2016 - was clearly not in the right space then as a test opener. 2022 is 6 years later - a lot can happen with an opening bat in 6 years.

Bairstow - I was probably one of the few that never wrote him off. You don't go from breaking the records for Wk/Bat one year to shit the next (even if the stats suggest that). Class and form aren't the same, he wasn't showing "form" when he was the best in the world.

Pope - averaged 36 and 43 - 2019 and 2020 - he (like a good few) dropped in 2021 to 21...On the back mainly of away series in India and Australia. He's now at 38 and 34, last 2 seasons, so he's getting back to near where he was.

Brook has hit 800 runs in 9 innings. That's 80 per innings he's contibuting. No one got near that in either India or Aus. Bairstow hit 1000 in 19 - at 66, last year. Those were scores in the middle that we weren't getting in India and Aus.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well, yes and there's clearly been improvement. It's difficult to judge how much until you're in a couple of years where you have India and Aus away (as you observed about Brook) - which were half of the defeats over that period. There's also been some change in personnel. Just before that run, we'd won 9 out of 12...

I picked one test at random v Australia (1st test) - we had Burns, Hameed, Malan, Buttler in the top 7 - so there's almost a 50% change in the batting department (and there've been changes since as we opened with Lees in that test).

Overall we're looking a lot more settled and have a lot more belief, I'm not sure if we had a similar line-up to some during the losing run, whether the Bazball would work as well...

The players we're playing with now though are almost all ones universally written off. Bar maybe Brook. We weren't sitting there under Sliverwood saying 'there are all these great batsmen out there and he's just messing it up' we bemoaned the fact we had no test batsmen.

Crawley universally deemed not good enough. Nobody wanted to give Duckett another go. Bairstow was an LBW waiting to happen. Pope doing nowt. I think its harsh to say its down to selection.

The approach has obviously completely transformed us. And NZ were a miles better side than we were prior to Baz and now aren't. So its also IMHO unfair to suggest we've not had tests. NZ, Pakistan away one off against India. We've played good sides and won or in Pakistan made history.

We were utterly hapless before. The worst test side I can remember even going back to the dark 80's - we were shocking.

We now aren't. Its not exactly traditional but its working. Will it work all the time? No. But I'd take where we are now every day over the dross Silverwood managed to dish up. And it was utter dross.

Up front - we were hapless under Silverwood (COVID now all but forgotten). I'm glad he's gone and I don't want him back. I'm happy with the way Bazball is going. Nothing more than I enjoy than winning sides. I don't think you can minimise how often our teams get gubbed in India and Aus - both 5 test series - India were in the top 2 sides undoubtedly (along with NZ) and Australia away isn't a happy hunting ground for us.

Crawley - still not sure he's good enough...He averaged 23 last season - 6 lower than the prior season, he's pushing 30 for this season (5 matches)...He hasn't had a "miracle renaissance." because of Bazball. It's just been noticed less.

Duckett had a go in 2016 - was clearly not in the right space then as a test opener. 2022 is 6 years later - a lot can happen with an opening bat in 6 years.

Bairstow - I was probably one of the few that never wrote him off. You don't go from breaking the records for Wk/Bat one year to shit the next (even if the stats suggest that). Class and form aren't the same, he wasn't showing "form" when he was the best in the world.

Pope - averaged 36 and 43 - 2019 and 2020 - he (like a good few) dropped in 2021 to 21...On the back mainly of away series in India and Australia. He's now at 38 and 34, last 2 seasons, so he's getting back to near where he was.

Brook has hit 800 runs in 9 innings. That's 80 per innings he's contibuting. No one got near that in either India or Aus. Bairstow hit 1000 in 19 - at 66, last year. Those were scores in the middle that we weren't getting in India and Aus.

But the previous mantra was 'who would you pick we don't have any better options'? I remember it on here many times when discussing Burns or the likes....

I'm not convinced selection really has much to do with it - at all. I think its making players feel comfortable with playing how it suits them. Bairstow doesn't look unstoppable from being abject just because - it was because he was selected to play his one day game but with the pressure taken off. Instead of 'play your game but you're out if it doesn't work' it was 'have a go and enjoy it and you're in now for good regardless'. And suddenly he took off.

Same for a few. I'd wager some who went like Buttler would do far better now than previously.

In 2021 we lost at home to NZ. In 2022 we lost away to the Windies.

I think you can of course, rightly argue that there were two very tough series in there and indeed we went into India in decent form.

But I don't think that tells the full story. We were a side without hope. Devoid of any style. Making it up as we went along. We were capitulating to humiliating defeats not competing and at least being in matches. And capitulating to the Windies - not just the great sides.

McCullum is simply maximising what we have available. Which is all he can do. Whether that's enough to beat Australia is a question mark. But I'd say that most of the 'Bazball will be found out' stuff is sort of missing the point. Every side in the world can play like this - but its the environment and culture that really underpins it. Playing at 7 plus an over isn't a magical thing only England can do but McCullum is building a culture where you can do it and when it goes wrong nobody is blamed and nobody is a scapegoat and you just keep going.

In terms of approach its very similar to what brought Morgan and England so much ODI success. I'm not sure what there is to not like? We desperately needed to do something and change English test cricket. We've done that. I suspect this is simply the future. Test match cricket needs to evolve generally and become a spectacle fit for the modern age.

Me? I'm a traditionalist. I enjoy watching a final day grind out a draw or whatever. But I'm the minority. And I can't begrudge 'Bazball' or Stokes for what they've achieved. Its a miracle really.

[Worthy4England]

But the previous mantra was 'who would you pick we don't have any better options'? I remember it on here many times when discussing Burns or the likes....

You did. It still stands. Whilst being happy with where we are as a team, I will still judge on India (a) Australia (a) more than most other places - because you really need to win one, if not both, to be the best Test team in the world.

Delighted at progress, not declaring us over the winning line, just yet.

[BWFC_Insane]

But the previous mantra was 'who would you pick we don't have any better options'? I remember it on here many times when discussing Burns or the likes....

You did. It still stands. Whilst being happy with where we are as a team, I will still judge on India (a) Australia (a) more than most other places - because you really need to win one, if not both, to be the best Test team in the world.

Delighted at progress, not declaring us over the winning line, just yet.

I think there is a fair argument that we were the worst (major) test team in the world and now are far from that. My judgement wouldn't be 'are we the best' from the position we were in. Just 'are we better' which its clear we are.

[Worthy4England]

But the previous mantra was 'who would you pick we don't have any better options'? I remember it on here many times when discussing Burns or the likes....

You did. It still stands. Whilst being happy with where we are as a team, I will still judge on India (a) Australia (a) more than most other places - because you really need to win one, if not both, to be the best Test team in the world.

Delighted at progress, not declaring us over the winning line, just yet.

I think there is a fair argument that we were the worst (major) test team in the world and now are far from that. My judgement wouldn't be 'are we the best' from the position we were in. Just 'are we better' which its clear we are.

Yup, I think I said I was happy with the way it was going, a few posts back. I just think it is a combination of things all changing rather than just one.

[TANGODANCER]

Yup, I think I said I was happy with the way it was going, a few posts back. I just think it is a combination of things all changing rather than just one.

For me, the captaincy. A great admirer of Joe Root, but Ben Stokes has revitalised the whole thing since he took over. Two of is own performances last year will live with me forever.

[TANGODANCER]

We haven't made a dazzling start. 59-3 already. Come on lads, buck up....

Ohhh leave the wide ones alone.....

[TANGODANCER]

Now Cricket Hari Kari ball. 80-5. Are we throwing it away?

[Prufrock]

Oh Joe. But then oh Joe. Finely poised. Ummed and ahed about staying up but decided against. Hope it's a bad decision. Stokes needs to get that knee fixed by the summer.

[Worthy4England]

Poor deccy in the first innings. 2 short.

[BWFC_Insane]

One of the greatest tests of all time. Again a lot of folk will miss the point. Like it or not this is what Stokes and McCullum are trying to do. Make test cricket exciting.

Heard lots of 'should have batted them into submission'. Aye. Yeah. But that's not what they want to do.

Even then after 80-5 we still probably should have won it.

[Worthy4England]

This is not a complaint, nor a grumble - just making that clear at the outset.

I don't think they're trying to make the game competitive, just the England side. A by-product of that is we'll occasionally get games like today - but I don't think that's what they set out to do (Even on todays game, they'd have preferred 2 more runs to 1, 1 more run to 0 etc.)

They're not trying to make test cricket come down to a final ball lottery or even be an "even / competitive game." They're all for England being as good as we can be. Had NZ followed-on got another 209 in the second innings and it all been over on day 3, with an innings victory to England, I think everyone (including Stokes and McCullum) would have been in the "job done" club.

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as exciting as what occurred, but I wouldn't have expected them to come out and say they'd not done their job properly. I doubt anyone with hindsight (easy shit) would now be complaining had they taken another 10 overs to hit an additional 10 runs - some would certainly say "that 10 runs Leach and Root put on was vital in the final analysis" - I can see for that how they might view that 10 overs as the "game drifting" and that's a call they made and you get what you get from there,

The problem of course is how well NZ batted in the second innings and Kane showing his world class credentials (amongst others) - I don't thing when they made the deccy, they were hoping for a 260 chase that would make a decent game of it, for one minute.

I do wonder had we batted again, what score we'd have left them chasing - I doubt it would have been 480 - but you never know.

[BWFC_Insane]

McCullum and Stokes have spoken about a broad desire to make test cricket exciting and rejuvenate the game. Even post match Stokes was clearly delighted the game was so good. Sure disappointed we lost. But I think they do have a bigger mission than grinding out test wins. Or that's how they see it at least.

[Worthy4England]

McCullum and Stokes have spoken about a broad desire to make test cricket exciting and rejuvenate the game. Even post match Stokes was clearly delighted the game was so good. Sure disappointed we lost. But I think they do have a bigger mission than grinding out test wins. Or that's how they see it at least.

Yup broad desire being the by-product. Main mission get England winning. The thought that England's coach and captain have some "higher brief" that's somehow more important is a nonsense, to me mate. Sure they might not want to "grind out" wins as a preference (If Jimmy kept getting on strike for 10 overs today before hitting a 2 - would that have been a grind out?)

When McCullum was appointed he said lots of things (and they've said lots of things since), including "The job is to give England the best opportunity to be the best side in the world" and "Test cricket needs England to be strong, competitive and playing a watchable style of cricket." Stoke's appointment interview put "winning games" as his number one priority...

So yes England position in test cricket to be exciting and rejuvenate the [England] game. No problem. If that creates some exciting tests on the way - great!

[TANGODANCER]

McCullum and Stokes have spoken about a broad desire to make test cricket exciting and rejuvenate the game. Even post match Stokes was clearly delighted the game was so good. Sure disappointed we lost. But I think they do have a bigger mission than grinding out test wins. Or that's how they see it at least.

When there's a bigger mission than winning, why play? You can see pantomimes any time, this is sport. Bit disappointed and even more surprised we lost, but I did say it wouldn't be a roll-over. On with the motley.

Oh, and dare I mention Joe Root getting his mate run out without facing a ball....then we lose by one run...Just a thought.

[BWFC_Insane]

McCullum and Stokes have spoken about a broad desire to make test cricket exciting and rejuvenate the game. Even post match Stokes was clearly delighted the game was so good. Sure disappointed we lost. But I think they do have a bigger mission than grinding out test wins. Or that's how they see it at least.

Yup broad desire being the by-product. Main mission get England winning. The thought that England's coach and captain have some "higher brief" that's somehow more important is a nonsense, to me mate. Sure they might not want to "grind out" wins as a preference (If Jimmy kept getting on strike for 10 overs today before hitting a 2 - would that have been a grind out?)

When McCullum was appointed he said lots of things (and they've said lots of things since), including "The job is to give England the best opportunity to be the best side in the world" and "Test cricket needs England to be strong, competitive and playing a watchable style of cricket." Stoke's appointment interview put "winning games" as his number one priority...

So yes England position in test cricket to be exciting and rejuvenate the [England] game. No problem. If that creates some exciting tests on the way - great!

I mean I don't think how you and I see it is necessarily the same as how Stokes and McCullum see it. My read is they'd rather have lost like they did yesterday than played a less entertaining brand of cricket.

See Stokes post match...

"It is disappointing to not win, but we look at the bigger picture,"

"What everyone has enjoyed here today is probably bigger than any disappointment at the moment.

"Being in that situation in the last half an hour, it is everything you wish for.

"And even though we came out on the wrong side of it, you can't help but feel blessed that we managed to be a part of an incredible game like that."

And whether I disagree or not with him I don't think this is a 'brave face'. It genuinely reflects the thinking in the new England setup.