What's new

[VIDEOS] Bazball cannot disguise Test cricket's weakest era

jnaveen1980 said:
You could say that was his peak year. He was dominating bowlers in world cup, dominating bowlers in Tests. You need a bit of luck to play a lot of matches when you are at peak. Kohli had that opportunity. He grabbed with both hands.
Click to expand...
Eh? No WC happened in 1998.
 
MP2011 said:
This is the first I'm hearing from someone that Tendukar's best decade wasn't '90s. In '00s, he was plagued by so many career threatening injuries and hence wasn't at his best even though bowling standards world over weren't as great as they were in '90s.
Click to expand...
Tendulkar became a bit smarter so he could accumulate runs. But he wasn't at his peak for sure.
 
greatest said:
Valid points. Btw, never denied his greatness.
Click to expand...
I never thought that you were denying his greatness. I have seen enough of your posts.

In 90s, I used to wake up early or sleep late to watch Wasim and SRT most of the time depending on the time zones. I enjoyed others as well, but I tried to catch these two whenever I could. I did not feel the same way about SRT after his injury because he stopped playing some shots. His tons had more impacts after 90s but the reasons were different. Wasim was the only bowler who could bowl 6 different balls in one over in 90s.
 
uppercut said:
Can you tell me what the ages of the cricketers are as seen in that video at that time( according to you without googling)?




the minimum frame rate of video cameras needed to capture natural movements and reproduce them on a screen is just 24 fps which was the standard even BEFORE Fred Trueman played.

So The only way that Freds bowling footage could be construed as being half the original speed is if someone intentionally manipulated it or that he bowled at twice the speed than what the footage is portraying( that is if we are to believe in what Fred is saying lol )

This is just pure science than anything else
Click to expand...
All I can say is that those bowlers were better than bowlers of today. They knew the art of taking wickets. Some like Larwood, Lindwall, Trueman, Hall etc etc had serious pace. I don't have time to get into an endless debate. Their is enough literature and experts on cricket who have watched and written about great bowlers of yesteryears.
 
MP2011 said:
Yeah, he became an accumulator in '00s but his strike rate didn't suffer during that decade.
Click to expand...
Another thing is pitches were slightly flatter in 2000s. If i remember right that decade had more 50 plus average than any decade. Around 20 batsmen averaged 50 plus in 2000s.
 
MP2011 said:
Yeah, he became an accumulator in '00s but his strike rate didn't suffer during that decade.
Click to expand...
2001 and 2002 he was the same aggressive risk taker. Had a poor 2003 in Tests. He cut down on his aggressive game in Tests from 2004. Had a very mediocre 2005 with an average of 40, and had a poor 2006. From 2007 till 2010 he was brilliant, but not the daredevil risktaker he was till 2002.

I'm speaking strictly about Tests.
 
greatest said:
All I can say is that those bowlers were better than bowlers of today.
Click to expand...

Proove it with proper facts. Don't expect me ti take your word.


greatest said:
They knew the art of taking wickets.
Click to expand...

Proove it.

greatest said:
Some like Larwood, Lindwall, Trueman, Hall etc etc had serious pace.
Click to expand...

Again proove it with facts that anyone can independently verify. Your and my work are immaterial.




greatest said:
I don't have time to get into an endless debate. Their is enough literature and experts on cricket who have watched and written about great bowlers of yesteryears.
Click to expand...

Thats entirely your own problem. But Unlike you I don't have to rely on external sources as crutches.



PS : Dont get into discussions that your ego cannot handle when there is a probability tbat facts can go horribly against you.

Entirely your problem but not a original strategy to bail out when things go south for the old era fanatics. Nothing new
 
greatest said:
All I can say is that those bowlers were better than bowlers of today. They knew the art of taking wickets. Some like Larwood, Lindwall, Trueman, Hall etc etc had serious pace. I don't have time to get into an endless debate. Their is enough literature and experts on cricket who have watched and written about great bowlers of yesteryears.
Click to expand...

90's had better bowlers for sure. There was no T20 garbage back then. Bowlers were also facing excellent batters with better techniques.

Most modern day cricketers are T20 hacks.
 
sweep_shot said:
90's had better bowlers for sure. There was no T20 garbage back then. Bowlers were also facing excellent batters with better techniques.

Most modern day cricketers are T20 hacks.
Click to expand...
Which countries had better bowlers? England, New Zealand, India never had such a high quality bowling attack, ever? SA's current pace attack is as potent with Rabada, Jansen, Nortje, Ngidi and now have the added advantage of having a proper spinner which they always lacked. Australia had a better spinner in Warne, but have a much better pace attack now. Bangladesh was terrible back then, slightly less terrible now.

Three teams have much weaker bowlers, that I accept, Pakistan, WI and SL.

I sometimes wonder if people actually watch test cricket before shooting from the hip?!
 
shortbread said:
Which countries had better bowlers? England, New Zealand, India never had such a high quality bowling attack, ever? SA's current pace attack is as potent with Rabada, Jansen, Nortje, Ngidi and now have the added advantage of having a proper spinner which they always lacked. Australia had a better spinner in Warne, but have a much better pace attack now. Bangladesh was terrible back then, slightly less terrible now.

Three teams have much weaker bowlers, that I accept, Pakistan, WI and SL.

I sometimes wonder if people actually watch test cricket before shooting from the hip?!
Click to expand...

90's bowling overall was better.

Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim etc.

Current bowlers face many T20 hacks (easy pickings). 90's bowlers didn't have that type of luxury.
 
sweep_shot said:
90's bowling overall was better.

Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim etc.

Current bowlers face many T20 hacks (easy pickings). 90's bowlers didn't have that type of luxury.
Click to expand...
WI, Pak and SL are the only teams with better bowling attacks and don't know if my memory fails me, but the last time I checked wasim, waqar, walsh and ambrose were pakistanis and west indians.

You have once again conveniently ignored the point
 
England’s bowling in the 90s could be fairly tragic. Gough, Caddick, Fraser and Cork were good, and Tufnell despite being a bit of a clown act did have a few impactful performances. There wasn’t much to speak of apart from these guys though. A lot of 1-2 Test wonders who you’d never heard of, and would get constantly flogged to the fence before being disappeared into thin air & never seen again.
 
sweep_shot said:
90's bowling overall was better.

Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim etc.

Current bowlers face many T20 hacks (easy pickings). 90's bowlers didn't have that type of luxury.
Click to expand...
No they really weren't, because the conditions they played in were different. The pitches, rules for bouncers, ball tampering, one could go on. Towards the second half of their careers they were slower and less impactful apart from Akram who had guile. In fairly helpful seaming conditions I do not think there is a more fearful bowler than Anderson, I'm a fan-boy but the stats show for themselves. A little bit of help and that man can rip apart any top order. Bumrah today is what Murali was to spin back then. A very awkward bowler whose skills hide the genius within.

But from the list you mentioned, one thing is clear, WI and Pakistan had a pace attack that the current lot cant even dream of matching. Yes Afridi is perhaps up there with the standards of the legends but he simply plays too much cricket. But for a system that produced legendary fast bowling names like IK, Wasim, Waqar, Aaqib, Sarfraz Nawaz, Akhtar, Fazal Mahmood.... even till recent times Asif, Amir or even Sami and Gul in their prime, the current Pakistani lot are a disappointment. Back then the Pakistani pace attack in operation was as exciting when today's English batting line up are in attack mode.

But saying World's test cricket is in decline is being unfair. People say T20 cricket has affected players. Agreed some of them took the short cut and found solace in becoming league cricket mercenaries. Yet at the same time T20 has produced new skills in batsmen and bowlers who prioritise Test cricket. The range of shots played nowadays, the accuracy of modern bowlers, all this has been a result of T20s. It's just that for some teams it has had a positive impact, and on others it has brought about a downfall.
 
@uppercut I agree with u.if the pitches are uncovered and filled with grass in old days, any opening bowler will fancy their chances .In that, there is no art in taking wickets especially lower order was never expected to score.Pitches in WI, Aus ,Eng have flattened out completely. So it's take more than something to take a wicket on general flat pitches.
 
Bazball's failure also ends the pointless argument that test cricket is at its weakest in this era.

India and Australia are comfortably the two strongest sides of this era and several players from both sides will make it to their respective all time XIs.

England can continue their Bazball approach as it allows them to be more ruthless vs the likes of Windies, Sri Lanka and Pakistan at home, something which was not very common earlier. Away from home, the result remains the same for them.

Pakistan inspite of having Babar Azam and Shaheen Shah in their side continue to stay mediocre in Test cricket for some reasons.

South Africa's decline is obviously the only drawback of this era compared to before as they are struggling to produce a 40+ test averaging batsman at present.
 
sweep_shot said:
NZ batters faced tougher bowlers in the 90's.

Also, during those days, there were biased/horrible umpiring. There was no DRS. Batters had to work harder for their runs.

I would say 1 run in the 90's is worth 5 runs in modern day.
Click to expand...

The hyperbole here is ridiculous. 1 run then is not worth 5 times a run today.

That is an extremely ignorant take on cricket.
 
James said:
England’s bowling in the 90s could be fairly tragic. Gough, Caddick, Fraser and Cork were good, and Tufnell despite being a bit of a clown act did have a few impactful performances. There wasn’t much to speak of apart from these guys though. A lot of 1-2 Test wonders who you’d never heard of, and would get constantly flogged to the fence before being disappeared into thin air & never seen again.
Click to expand...

Gough was the only truly high quality fast bowler England had from 1990 until 2002/03.

Had the skills and pace to perform everywhere , including in Asia.
 
"I Don't Think India Killed Bazball": Ex-England Star Makes Massive Claim

The England cricket team returned to action in the longest format of the sport as they faced West Indies in the first Test match on Wednesday. It was a huge occasion as the encounter was star fast bowler James Anderson's final international appearance. The last time England played a Test series was against India where they were handed a massive 1-4 defeat in the five-match series. Several fans and experts believed that England's 'Bazball' approach of cricket did not work for them in India and the result was an indicator of its limitations. However, former England pacer Steve Harmison believes that the national side played good cricket in India and they even gave the hosts 'a real headache' during the series.

“I thought they (England) played excellent cricket in India. They gave India some real headaches. But then, all of a sudden, when you get to a point that you go, 'oh no, they've done it again'. How many times you see a crash of wickets? That's the problem, where you need to read a room. You can't have everything in an ideal world. The way these red ball players play now, it's far better than what it was in the previous regime,” Harmison told talkSPORT cricket.

“I don't think India killed Bazball. I think India played better cricket in their own backyard. They made smarter decisions under pressure. But I think there were definitely times during those five Test matches where England gave India a real headache. And not many teams have done that to India in India,” he added.

Meanwhile, the decision taken by England captain Ben Stokes to bowl first was greeted by huge cheers from the crowd, with spectators eager to witness the last chapter of a record-breaking Test career.

Anderson has taken 700 Test wickets, the most by any fast bowler, since making his debut against Zimbabwe at Lord's in 2003.

Before play started it was the 41-year-old Anderson who presented the 26-year-old Atkinson with his England cap in a match where another Surrey player -- wicketkeeper Jamie Smith -- was also making his Test debut.

Anderson's daughters rang the five-minute bell in the Pavilion before their father led England onto the field of play to prolonged applause.

NDTV
 
Bazball works on flat wickets, in more challenging conditions, application needs to be prioritised over attack. Bazball is the reason England were victorious in their Pakistan tour.
 
shortbread said:
Bazball works on flat wickets, in more challenging conditions, application needs to be prioritised over attack. Bazball is the reason England were victorious in their Pakistan tour.
Click to expand...
Yes , Pakistan gave them perfect pitches to Play bazball . Really poor from Ramiz Raja.
 
England just scored a 50 in just 4.2 overs. It's the fastest team 50 in Test cricket!

This is pure bazbal stuff atm against West Indies.
 
BouncerGuy said:
England just scored a 50 in just 4.2 overs. It's the fastest team 50 in Test cricket!

This is pure bazbal stuff atm against West Indies.
Click to expand...
Bazball, (honestly hate the term) works on lower quality teams. India and Australia have already shown how to handle it and spank it.
Hope others team catch up. Ultra fast scoring hardly matters in tests if the team is still going to all out within 400. Other team has to just remain sensible and play normal cricket, by the time 2nd innings arrive, English bowlers would be tired while the opposition bowlers will still be fresh and that will dictate the end of the game.
 
Bazball is working atleast in English conditions, England team made 416 today against West Indies in just 88.3 overs with a run rate of 4.7
 
416 vs this West Indies lineup consisting of 2.5 bowlers on a decent pitch and with a lot of chances dropped and missed is sort of bare minimum.

The real test of Bazball was in India and it failed royally and completely. The next big test will be in Australia and I can predict my hat that it's going to fail there too. Slogging is not a substitute for lack of skill.
 
Sir Alex said:
416 vs this West Indies lineup consisting of 2.5 bowlers on a decent pitch and with a lot of chances dropped and missed is sort of bare minimum.

The real test of Bazball was in India and it failed royally and completely. The next big test will be in Australia and I can predict my hat that it's going to fail there too. Slogging is not a substitute for lack of skill.
Click to expand...
West Indian attack is way better than many of the lower ranked sides. THey just don't have tactical captain who can get the best out of them.
 
Bazball needs flat batting tracks. Anything slightly more challenging or an equally competent batting unit and the strategy fails. Gobsmacked how the supposedly 'brilliant' then PCB chairman Rameez raja gave England exactly what they asked for when they toured Pakistan.
 
I don't like this pace in test cricket. Red ball should be more competitive. There high scoring matches are pretty boring for this format.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Bazball is working atleast in English conditions, England team made 416 today against West Indies in just 88.3 overs with a run rate of 4.7
Click to expand...
The only that should matter is the score of 416, RR doesnt matter.
And against a limp bowling attack and terrible fielding if you get bundled out at 400 score and barely tiring the opposition bowlers, its hardly worth it.
 
sweep_shot said:
Modern day Indian fans don't seem to respect previous generations.

Players from previous eras didn't have protections like today's cricketers. Batters were batting without adequate protections. Today's cricketers are very pampered.

Let's see how Rohit does without a helmet and guards against a 80-90 KMH bowler.
Click to expand...
Anyone can play without a helmet against 90kmph bowler, :hamster: Infact batsmen get rid of their helmets while playing them, one player who was scared of removing his helmet was the timid cricketer called Sachin Tendulkar :troll
 
I watched every delivery of the 5 test series that England played in India at the beginning of the year.

And good lord, it was absolutely cringeworthy an approach from England. To watch the likes of Joe Root falling prey to this ridiculous propaganda and resorting to playing ludicrous shots was embarrassing to say the least.

This is what happens when you make someone like Mccullum the coach. He himself has been a mediocre batter who masked his lack of skill sets and application with slogging largely. It's ok for a lower order batter like him to do in a team like New Zealand. But for an entire batting line up to do that is just not only asking for trouble but also utter disrespect for test cricket.

The so called excuse of entertainment is reducing test cricket into an average T20 lover's concept of cricket - that entertainment is all about fours and sixes. I find test cricket vastly entertaining than white ball cricket for the way skill sets are thoroughly tested - of both batters and bowlers. How dismissals are planned and weaved like a web across several deliveries. How a batter patiently withstands a spell of bowling fury to cash in later against a weaker option etc etc. There are mindgames, there are stories, there are comebacks and eventually, over a 3-5 tests period, you have a conclusive winner.

The Indian series showed us all the pitfalls in Bazball. Over five tests it was laid threadbare, exposed and humiliated. It seemed that the so called Bazball approach was a mind-numbing dumb approach consisting of blind sweeps and reverse sweeps. In a mother of all flukes innings, Pope actually managed to score a big 100 with that approach and Eng won a close encounter at Hyderabad which made them believe their own con - but how spectacularly that backfired in the following tests!!

Despite all the hoohaa only one batter from England managed to average over 40 (with Zac Crawley barely making it with 40.7) while seven Indians averaged over 40, including 3 debutants. England ended the series with an overall batting avg of 25 and bowling avg of 40. It was as humiliating as some of the worst tours they have undertaken previously to India.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Anyone can play without a helmet against 90kmph bowler, :hamster: Infact batsmen get rid of their helmets while playing them, one player who was scared of removing his helmet was the timid cricketer called Sachin Tendulkar :troll
Click to expand...
Tendulkar wasn't timid. He was rather intelligent to understand that wearing a helmet also protects from accidents - such as a stray throw from the deep. Or a mishit sweep shot into the face.
 
West Indies 305-5 in 74 overs, the inventors of bazball having a taste of their own medicine.
 
WI batting showed why Eng batting was so poor yesterday. This was a 550 pitch easily.

Even WI batters threw their wickets away mostly. Still they should look at getting to at least 500.
 
A strong fight back from England today after a strong batting performance from West Indies. They made 248/3 today in second innings at nearly 5 run per over in 51 overs after WI made 457 in 1st innings.
 
Another stunner for Bazball today as they lost to Sri Lanka in the 3rd Test while they remained victors of the series by a 2-1 margin
 
They hardly employed Bazball in this match. If anything Srilanka bazballed them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually more like this is the weakest era for Test batting in general.

Almost every team now has a decent pace attack and almost 70% of wkts are result oriented nowadays.

It is abysmal how fairly talented players like Gill, KL Rahul, Pope are averaging mid 30s after playing substantial amount of tests. Post 2015 the only new batters who've averaged over 50 over a 20 match time frame are Labuschagne, Babar and Daz Mitchell. Of these, Babar and Labu avg 60+ at home and 35-36 away.

It seems 42 is the new 50 and 35 is the new 40
 
Even Australia are headed for a cliff. Atleast Eng and India have some bright prospects like Jaiswal, Brook, Jamie Smith.

Aus have only produced in the last decade 2 Test class batters in Head (41 avg) and Marnus (49 avg). Within 2 years they'll have to replace 3 of their current top 6 (Usman, Smith and Mitch Marsh) and pickings are very slim on their domestic circuit.
 
pratiktc said:
Actually more like this is the weakest era for Test batting in general.

Almost every team now has a decent pace attack and almost 70% of wkts are result oriented nowadays.

It is abysmal how fairly talented players like Gill, KL Rahul, Pope are averaging mid 30s after playing substantial amount of tests. Post 2015 the only new batters who've averaged over 50 over a 20 match time frame are Labuschagne, Babar and Daz Mitchell. Of these, Babar and Labu avg 60+ at home and 35-36 away.

It seems 42 is the new 50 and 35 is the new 40
Click to expand...
Main reason for that is narrow span of concentration - modern players can't keep focus for long and make at least one fatal mistake within a 29 overs (one session) span. Besides, because of playing too many white ball games, the hunger for big innings isn't there any more - say a 24 balls 59 is match winning in T20, a 54 balls 82 can be match winning in ODI; in that environment, how many would bother for a 319 of 575 balls in 10 hours?

Take Bradman, 52 Tests, 80 innings, 10 NO, 6996 runs at 99.94 - even that guy had 7 ducks (1 out of 11 outings, remarkably high ratio) and 23 innings in single digits. He had 29 hundreds & 12 50s, means around half of his career innings (39 of 80), he failed to cross 50, and yet managed a career average twice of 50. That's because, once set he was an immovable object - he had 12 doubles including 2 triples and at least another 12 over 150 ... once set, his innings were like 334, 304, 299* 254, 270, 244, 234, 187*, 170 .......

This is something I wrote long back (If Babar can end up with an average of 50+) that he won't neither Kohli - because Babar even at this age doesn't have a double and Kohli probably 1 or 2 - unless, you have few 200+ NO innings, it is really difficult to manage an average over 45-46. Also, modern players less value stats, particularly Test stats and average, hence don't put that much value to a Test wicket (not that much desperate to remain NO) - for example, in last Pindi Test, Mominul had a easy chance to remain NO on like 58 - he played a shot that in that situation, no Test player would have played even in 1980s, probably not even 90s. Graeme Hick was given till Tea to score his Hundred (SCG 1994) and when Captain (Athers?) called them in on Tea, Hick was 98* - his last 35 balls got him 23, and he was happy to be NO on 98, rather than get out trying to force a hundred.

50 years back, Viv had a similar attitude of modern day players - instead of hanging around for NO or converting into a mammoth innings, guy would blast his way with tremendous innings of 70-80, may be 110, that too targeting the main bowlers .... hence ended up with at average of just 50.23. At one point, till his 30s, Viv had an average of almost 60 (@ 75+SR), with 13/14 hundreds in like 50 Tests (It's like 1 in every <6 innings) and he had like 3 doubles - with age his eye sight faded away, but he didn't compromise his attacking instincts, hence his SR remained same, but for his last 70 or so Tests, he averaged something like 42.
 
The BazBall concept was put to rest after England's loss to India, and now it only seems to exist in England when they face weaker bowling attacks.
 
pratiktc said:
It seems 42 is the new 50 and 35 is the new 40
Click to expand...

DRS makes a big difference as well, as does the increasingly UHD multi screen views of run out appeals and potential stumpings.

Bowling team gets a player out / they get themselves out, in international cricket they’ll be slumping off to the pavilion. No more benefit of the doubt will be given.

For international umpires, DRS and 4K video replays have changed the landscape, and on an unconscious level will undoubtedly affect the way that they do their jobs.

I don’t know the statistics, nor the quantifiable effect on batting averages, but I would suspect that these are on a firmly downward trend.
 
MMHS said:
Main reason for that is narrow span of concentration - modern players can't keep focus for long and make at least one fatal mistake within a 29 overs (one session) span. Besides, because of playing too many white ball games, the hunger for big innings isn't there any more - say a 24 balls 59 is match winning in T20, a 54 balls 82 can be match winning in ODI; in that environment, how many would bother for a 319 of 575 balls in 10 hours?

Take Bradman, 52 Tests, 80 innings, 10 NO, 6996 runs at 99.94 - even that guy had 7 ducks (1 out of 11 outings, remarkably high ratio) and 23 innings in single digits. He had 29 hundreds & 12 50s, means around half of his career innings (39 of 80), he failed to cross 50, and yet managed a career average twice of 50. That's because, once set he was an immovable object - he had 12 doubles including 2 triples and at least another 12 over 150 ... once set, his innings were like 334, 304, 299* 254, 270, 244, 234, 187*, 170 .......

This is something I wrote long back (If Babar can end up with an average of 50+) that he won't neither Kohli - because Babar even at this age doesn't have a double and Kohli probably 1 or 2 - unless, you have few 200+ NO innings, it is really difficult to manage an average over 45-46. Also, modern players less value stats, particularly Test stats and average, hence don't put that much value to a Test wicket (not that much desperate to remain NO) - for example, in last Pindi Test, Mominul had a easy chance to remain NO on like 58 - he played a shot that in that situation, no Test player would have played even in 1980s, probably not even 90s. Graeme Hick was given till Tea to score his Hundred (SCG 1994) and when Captain (Athers?) called them in on Tea, Hick was 98* - his last 35 balls got him 23, and he was happy to be NO on 98, rather than get out trying to force a hundred.

50 years back, Viv had a similar attitude of modern day players - instead of hanging around for NO or converting into a mammoth innings, guy would blast his way with tremendous innings of 70-80, may be 110, that too targeting the main bowlers .... hence ended up with at average of just 50.23. At one point, till his 30s, Viv had an average of almost 60 (@ 75+SR), with 13/14 hundreds in like 50 Tests (It's like 1 in every <6 innings) and he had like 3 doubles - with age his eye sight faded away, but he didn't compromise his attacking instincts, hence his SR remained same, but for his last 70 or so Tests, he averaged something like 42.
Click to expand...
Very insightful post. When you lay it out like you have it's very obvious why the trajectory is downwards.
 
James said:
DRS makes a big difference as well, as does the increasingly UHD multi screen views of run out appeals and potential stumpings.
Click to expand...

Ashwin highlighted this in a tweet during recent Duleep trophy match.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240910-080409.png
    Screenshot_20240910-080409.png
    828.2 KB · Views: 13
Bazball effect??

RVNMxtI.png
 
England's bowlers are not getting enough time to rest and recuperate under the Bazball era, says Sky Sports' Nasser Hussain.

Under head coach Brendon McCullum and captain Ben Stokes, England's ultra-positive and aggressive mentality has helped them score runs quickly to put the opposition under pressure, but it often leads to a tight turnaround between innings meaning their bowlers don't get enough downtime.

England's seamers and spinners accounted evenly for the 10 wickets in Pakistan's first innings, bowling the hosts out for 556 in 149 overs, before Zak Crawley's (64no) half-century helped the visitors post 96-1 at stumps on day two in Multan.

"In this Bazball era, they get their runs so quickly that the bowlers are on and off the field so fast and they aren't having as much rest as they are used to have in previous times," said Hussain on Sky Sports Cricket.

"It's something to keep an eye out in this heat. For England, they need to get as close as possible, and for Pakistan, just make sure you bowl England out and try to push on and win.

"The only thing I would say in this part of the world is be careful for two reasons.

"And two, in this part of the world, the game moves very, very slowly and then suddenly on day five it starts doing peculiar things off those cracks or it starts spinning.

"The key for England will be to get as close as possible and by doing that you give the bowlers a rest and the second time round, they have got the energy levels to bowl the opposition out."

England's exhaustion became apparent in the evening session when wicketkeeper Jamie Smith missed an easy stumping chance and pace bowler Gus Atkinson (2-99) dropped Abrar Ahmed at midwicket when they were on the cusp of bowling Pakistan out.

The mistake only cost England six runs but, more crucially, it also saw their opener Ben Duckett suffer an injured thumb after taking a catch at slip.

Had England taken the chances prior, Duckett would have been fit to open the batting as per usual instead of Ollie Pope, who was later dismissed for a duck.

Under the McCullum-Stokes era, England have conceded 500 twice and won both times. The first was against New Zealand at Trent Bridge and the second was during their previous trip to Pakistan in 2022 at Rawalpindi.

"That's one thing about England's batting line-up that they score their runs so quickly, they can creep up on you," added Hussain.

"Zak Crawley's break has probably done him good. Because he hits through the line so well, he can nail you. Your margin for error on line and length is miniscule."

"Apart from 15 minutes either side of tea when England looked absolutely exhausted, I thought they did really well.

"How can you say that when the opposition got 556 and there's three scores of hundreds in there? You have to look at how England have gone out to bat.

"It's a flat wicket, maybe five balls of swing for Naseem Shah and Shaheen Shah Afridi but there's been no reverse-swing.

"During England's last tour out here, reverse-swing was key and Stokes' captaincy was to be defensive until that reverse-swing came into play.

"Test cricket can't afford this pitch to be like this for five days, no wonder no-one is in."

England pace bowler Brydon Carse, who is making his Test debut, finished with figures of 2-74. He bowled 22 overs in the Multan heat, three of which were maidens.

Carse's first Test wicket came in the form of Pakistan's nightwatchman Naseem Shah (33) before the Durham seamer trapped Aamer Jamal (7) leg-before in the afternoon session.

"It's been hard work and hard toil over the last two days but I've thoroughly enjoyed the challenge.

"Stokesy said to me after we came in after we fielded that it's not going to get as tough as this over the last two days and he reassured me.

"There were times when the heat was probably the biggest challenge and obviously the wicket, but as a group of bowlers everyone kept coming back in short bursts.

"I think it [no reverse-swing] did surprise me. There was a lot of short-pitched bowling and a lot of changing of fields but hopefully in the second innings we can get that ball reversing quite quickly.

"I had a conversation with [Chris] Woakes and [Gus] Atkinson at the end, and their legs were hanging on. The lads will rest up tonight and go back to it tomorrow.

"I've been in the red most of these two days even with the constant consumption of water and fluids."

SKY SPORTS
 
BouncerGuy said:
England's bowlers are not getting enough time to rest and recuperate under the Bazball era, says Sky Sports' Nasser Hussain.

Under head coach Brendon McCullum and captain Ben Stokes, England's ultra-positive and aggressive mentality has helped them score runs quickly to put the opposition under pressure, but it often leads to a tight turnaround between innings meaning their bowlers don't get enough downtime.

England's seamers and spinners accounted evenly for the 10 wickets in Pakistan's first innings, bowling the hosts out for 556 in 149 overs, before Zak Crawley's (64no) half-century helped the visitors post 96-1 at stumps on day two in Multan.

"In this Bazball era, they get their runs so quickly that the bowlers are on and off the field so fast and they aren't having as much rest as they are used to have in previous times," said Hussain on Sky Sports Cricket.

"It's something to keep an eye out in this heat. For England, they need to get as close as possible, and for Pakistan, just make sure you bowl England out and try to push on and win.

"The only thing I would say in this part of the world is be careful for two reasons.

"And two, in this part of the world, the game moves very, very slowly and then suddenly on day five it starts doing peculiar things off those cracks or it starts spinning.

"The key for England will be to get as close as possible and by doing that you give the bowlers a rest and the second time round, they have got the energy levels to bowl the opposition out."

England's exhaustion became apparent in the evening session when wicketkeeper Jamie Smith missed an easy stumping chance and pace bowler Gus Atkinson (2-99) dropped Abrar Ahmed at midwicket when they were on the cusp of bowling Pakistan out.

The mistake only cost England six runs but, more crucially, it also saw their opener Ben Duckett suffer an injured thumb after taking a catch at slip.

Had England taken the chances prior, Duckett would have been fit to open the batting as per usual instead of Ollie Pope, who was later dismissed for a duck.

Under the McCullum-Stokes era, England have conceded 500 twice and won both times. The first was against New Zealand at Trent Bridge and the second was during their previous trip to Pakistan in 2022 at Rawalpindi.

"That's one thing about England's batting line-up that they score their runs so quickly, they can creep up on you," added Hussain.

"Zak Crawley's break has probably done him good. Because he hits through the line so well, he can nail you. Your margin for error on line and length is miniscule."

"Apart from 15 minutes either side of tea when England looked absolutely exhausted, I thought they did really well.

"How can you say that when the opposition got 556 and there's three scores of hundreds in there? You have to look at how England have gone out to bat.

"It's a flat wicket, maybe five balls of swing for Naseem Shah and Shaheen Shah Afridi but there's been no reverse-swing.

"During England's last tour out here, reverse-swing was key and Stokes' captaincy was to be defensive until that reverse-swing came into play.

"Test cricket can't afford this pitch to be like this for five days, no wonder no-one is in."

England pace bowler Brydon Carse, who is making his Test debut, finished with figures of 2-74. He bowled 22 overs in the Multan heat, three of which were maidens.

Carse's first Test wicket came in the form of Pakistan's nightwatchman Naseem Shah (33) before the Durham seamer trapped Aamer Jamal (7) leg-before in the afternoon session.

"It's been hard work and hard toil over the last two days but I've thoroughly enjoyed the challenge.

"Stokesy said to me after we came in after we fielded that it's not going to get as tough as this over the last two days and he reassured me.

"There were times when the heat was probably the biggest challenge and obviously the wicket, but as a group of bowlers everyone kept coming back in short bursts.

"I think it [no reverse-swing] did surprise me. There was a lot of short-pitched bowling and a lot of changing of fields but hopefully in the second innings we can get that ball reversing quite quickly.

"I had a conversation with [Chris] Woakes and [Gus] Atkinson at the end, and their legs were hanging on. The lads will rest up tonight and go back to it tomorrow.

"I've been in the red most of these two days even with the constant consumption of water and fluids."

SKY SPORTS
Click to expand...
They just realized it? We called this out right when the started playing Bazball. They were treating bowlers like dirt.
 
England's Bazball era has yielded 20 victories in 30 Tests, including three remarkable wins in Rawalpindi, Hyderabad, and Multan, which were previously considered unlikely.
 
Bazball has been exposed time and again and in terms of test cricket eras it won't hold up to comparisons. But as a vehicle to get more eyeballs on test cricket is has been a success.
FearlessRoar said:
Is Bazball dependent on Joe Root's conventional playing style?

ksIWplD.jpg
Click to expand...
He is the glue that holds them together. England were looking dire in India when he tried to be overly attacking, but once he got back to the style he knows they looked a much better side
 
Every other test is offering excitement and good sessions these days, I have watched some cricket in the 2000s and it was more of batters scoring heaps of runs, test cricket will keep going.
 
It's the best approach for Eng given limited batting they have. Eng has won lots of tests with this approach. Yes not in places like Aus/Ind but who cares. It's not as if they were winning there even before.

Goal should be to maximize output given whatever resources you have. I think Eng has done it more or less.
 
Pakistan making fun of Bazball at home.

Stat: This is the first time in Bazball era that England lost 5 wickets for less than 100 runs while batting first in a Test.
 
BouncerGuy said:
Pakistan making fun of Bazball at home.

Stat: This is the first time in Bazball era that England lost 5 wickets for less than 100 runs while batting first in a Test.
Click to expand...
I'm enjoying this too but we should be honest with ourselves.

Bazball made a complete mockery of our cricket over 4 tests. They bashed us and pummeled us in a way that has rarely happened in cricket.

In response we had to upturn our selectors, take power away from the coach, use fans and hoses to break up pitches have uncles bowling non stop to try and stop them and get a win.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
I'm enjoying this too but we should be honest with ourselves.

Bazball made a complete mockery of our cricket over 4 tests. They bashed us and pummeled us in a way that has rarely happened in cricket.

In response we had to upturn our selectors, take power away from the coach, use fans and hoses to break up pitches have uncles bowling non stop to try and stop them and get a win.
Click to expand...

Baz ball was brought in to.mask England's deficiency when it comes to techniques. Bar Root, and lesser extent Stokes. Rest are t20 Cow lashers
 
Zahid coming in after Brook and Duckett have been dismissed is good. Those 2 are exceptional players of leg spin - better than Root even
 
Former cricketer Geoffrey Boycott has criticized England’s approach against quality spin:

“If you want to be rated a great batsman, you must have a rounded game and score runs on all types of pitches. And if you want to have a legacy as a great team then you have to be able to win on all surfaces. They are wasting their opportunity and risk being remembered as flat-track bullies unless they make some adjustments for conditions,”

"As soon as the ball grips Zak Crawley, Ollie Pope, Harry Brook and Stokes are all at sea. They go at the ball with hard hands and there are gaps between bat and pad. If they are not smashing boundaries they lose patience – and patience and concentration are the most important traits on turning pitches,"
 
Cricket Warrior said:
Former cricketer Geoffrey Boycott has criticized England’s approach against quality spin:

“If you want to be rated a great batsman, you must have a rounded game and score runs on all types of pitches. And if you want to have a legacy as a great team then you have to be able to win on all surfaces. They are wasting their opportunity and risk being remembered as flat-track bullies unless they make some adjustments for conditions,”

"As soon as the ball grips Zak Crawley, Ollie Pope, Harry Brook and Stokes are all at sea. They go at the ball with hard hands and there are gaps between bat and pad. If they are not smashing boundaries they lose patience – and patience and concentration are the most important traits on turning pitches,"
Click to expand...
First time Ive heard this guy criticise someone other than Pakistan

Phew that means something went right

:shappy
 
sweep_shot said:
NZ batters faced tougher bowlers in the 90's.

Also, during those days, there were biased/horrible umpiring. There was no DRS. Batters had to work harder for their runs.

I would say 1 run in the 90's is worth 5 runs in modern day.
Click to expand...

*BUMP*

This post deserve's more eyeballs :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Have Australia and India hit rock bottom?
2
Replies
96
Views
2K
Nikhil_cric
N
hassan918
  • Poll Poll
[VIDEOS] Is Sajid Khan/Noman Ali the most lethal bowling pair for Pakistan after Wasim Akram/Waqar Younis?
Replies
45
Views
1K
Cricket Warrior
C
ikky47
Is this the most bowling-friendly era in Test cricket post-WW2?
Replies
10
Views
223
jnaveen1980
J
S
Dear PCB, please don't create a road for the 3rd and final Test against England
Replies
54
Views
1K
James
James
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
Who is the weakest link in the current Pakistan team?
Replies
39
Views
1K
Cricket Warrior
C
Back
Top