At an Asian Games table tennis event long ago, a Korean coach explained to me the importance of the third ball attack. He broke it down thus: You serve, await the return and then attack it. It is commonplace now. Back then that strategy was innovative and coaches joked about the fourth ball and fifth ball attacks.
I was reminded of that in England where Bazball is the new mantra (one occasionally hears ‘Benball’ too — perhaps skipper Stokes hasn’t been given enough credit) and fans love it. The more cynical believe that the character of English cricket — safety first, risk-averse, look-before-you-leap — is too deeply ingrained and has had just enough success for everything to be thrown overboard now. Something has to give, they say.
Return of the crowds
But it is new (for England), it is attractive, it might reduce the number of drawn games, and it is beginning to bring the crowds back. Soon, as other countries catch on, the strategy will move from the innovative to the conventional. And that’s when the strength of Bazball will be tested. How do you counter your own tactics thrown back at you by other teams?
Earlier, as the West Indies under Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards, and then Australia under Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting ruled the world of cricket, such tactics were known as ‘positive’ cricket, or ‘playing to win’.
Sometimes it took just three days to pick up the 20 wickets to win after making a big total in between. Great teams have usually played the Bazball style of cricket – Bradman’s Australia, for instance. No one called it Bradzball or Lloyball or Waughball or anything.
Today’s audiences prefer tactics to carry a label, perhaps for quick reference, perhaps because they sound pithy. And perhaps because there is just enough ambiguity to squeeze well-established manoueuvres into a more recent approach. There’s no harm in that, and if Brendon McCallum is fated to be remembered for ‘Bazball’ rather than for his incredible hitting at the top of the batting order, that is the way things pan out sometimes.
An important element in Bazball, however, is the third innings of the match (and hence my recall of the third ball attack from another sport). Both New Zealand and India, who lost a total of four matches in England, messed up their second innings, the third of the match.
Serving England well
And with their own top batsmen in form, England consistently scored over 250 in the fourth to win. England’s ‘third innings attack’, has served them superbly. It will be interesting to see how England themselves play the third innings when they bat first, even assuming the third innings attack might sometimes be the bowlers’ job.
Cricket has seldom acknowledged the third innings as the deciding one in a Test. The first, naturally, since a good start is an important aspect of any game. The fourth, inevitably, since this is where teams hang on for a draw or play above themselves to win. The second innings (of four) is usually like a return of serve – it can be the start of a discussion or end one decisively. But that third innings somehow became the least important, not much talked about, the one used merely to mark time. It was the ugly sister in the fairytale that is cricket – but has now emerged as the princess, all golden slippers and shining crown.
Philosophers who compare cricket to life talk about the manner in which it gives a player a second chance. Failure may be followed by success. But, as England showed in the Edgbaston Test against India, the reverse could turn out to be equally true.
Success — India led by 132 in the first innings — might be followed by failure too. Sport being a zero sum game, one team’s success is usually the opposition’s failure, but to focus on ensuring that whatever happens in the first two innings of the match, it is the third that really matters is what Bazball has spelt out. And it’s intriguing.
Early to draw conclusions
It is too early to draw any conclusions, of course. But England’s resurgence has been fascinating. In the twelve years before now, England’s strike rate in the fourth innings was 47. This summer over four Tests it has been 75. They scored at 4.6 runs per over compared to the 2.95 previously. Jonny Bairstow’s strike rate over four Tests and four centuries has been 100, which is remarkable.
Can any team sustain this? Will England themselves be able to do so in India or Australia? It doesn’t matter. Perhaps Bazball’s greatest contribution might be a shift in focus. Its stated aim is not victory or defeat alone, but to bring more people into the game. And that is not such a bad thing.
