A month ago, the Ashes were starting Down Under. And as of today, Australia have sealed the five Test series 3 - 0 with two to play, England haven’t been playing with their former “Bazball” flair, and the magic “whitewash” word is starting to be heard again. It wasn’t meant to be this way.

Bazball running aground?

As I explained in my pre-series post, the “Bazball” philosophy started in response to England’s last defeat in Australia. It had strong initial success and then moderate results - but it was still better than England’s performance before adopting it. They’d been building a squad specifically to win in Australian conditions, and on paper it looked more threatening than the last few English touring sides.

In the first Test they’d taken a first innings lead very similar to the one India had taken the previous year. After the first day I was fully prepared to write “I knew England had gone to a lot of trouble to build a bowling attack for Australian conditions, but I’d underestimated it”. Since then, though, everything has gone wrong for them.

After being on top at the end of day 1, by the end of day 2 they’d lost. Then they lost the next two Tests - both times putting up fight in patches, but both times fairly convincingly beaten.

Like so often, it’s not just the fact that England have lost, but the way they’ve lost. It hasn’t been the play of a team facing a few setbacks, but the play of a team that’s outclassed, and knows that they’re outclassed. The play of a team that had to abandon their Plan A, and have struggled to find a compelling Plan B.

One of the best known characteristics of “Bazball” is fast scoring, and that’s what they did in the first Test. But as a result they weren’t able to survive long, and then were unfortunate enough to be soundly beaten by a whirlwind Travis Head innings. It happens.

But in the second Test I noticed a strange thing - not only did Australia end up taking a decisive first innings lead, but they were also scoring faster than England. This included batsmen like Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne who aren’t generally known for swift scoring. In fact, Australia were going at five an over up till they lost their last recognised batsman - and then their bowlers very successfully batted time. Finally, in the second innings England’s captain top-scored with one of the slowest innings - and it still wasn’t enough to save the match.

Then came the just-concluded Test, on a pitch that was billed as Bazball’s best chance of the series. Australia made what looked to be an under-par first innings total, but once again England conceded a first innings lead, and once again it was captain Stokes who was left to dig in and top score with one of England’s slowest innings - before watching another Head whirlwind. Later Zak Crawley, England’s top scorer in the second innings, confirmed that his slower batting was due to the quality of Australia’s bowling attack, not a strategic choice to bat slower.

Today for a while they looked to have a chance to pull off a remarkable chase before losing to what was ultimately a fairly comfortable Australian victory margin. But had they won the Test, it really wouldn’t have been another famous Bazball victory. It would have been a victory of grit and application. Well deserved, certainly, but definitely not following Plan A.

And so, if you want to define Bazball as something like “working together as a team, scoring fast when it makes sense to score fast, and building a bowling team that can take twenty wickets”, there’s only been one team out there that’s been doing that - and it’s not England. It’s quite a role reversal - I expected Australia to win the series, but I expected there to be more mercurial English brilliance and more Australian grind when in fact it’s almost been the reverse.

I genuinely thought England had a chance - not to win the series, but to be far more competitive than they have been the past few series here in Australia. Now I’m not so sure. And I’m not the only one.

Take for example Greg Chappell’s words after the second Test:

I’m not sure how English supporters must feel, but as someone who was looking forward to a hard-fought and close contest, I feel cheated by what England have served up so far. (SOURCE)

This last Test was certainly harder-fought, and went into the fifth day - but I’m still not sure it was that close.

Facing setbacks

Neither team have been able to play their first choice XI all three Tests. That happens. You can’t expect anything else in a major five Test series.

But Australia has been able to deal with those setbacks better. They successfully replaced Cummins - captain and brilliant bowler - for two Tests. They successfully replaced Smith - one of their best batsmen - on the morning of this Test. They also successfully overcame the loss to injury of Nathan Lyon (again!) on the fifth day - though they might have had more difficulty if he’d been injured earlier in the Test.

England lost Mark Wood to injury, but their other pace bowlers haven’t had the consistent impact they expected. Their first choice spinner, prepared for several years for this moment, hasn’t played a Test, and the last couple of matches has been replaced by a part-time spinner to strengthen the batting. Joe Root got his maiden century in Australia, which was well deserved, but so far, none of Ben Duckett, Harry Brook or Jamie Smith have had the impact with the bat that I expected. Zak Crawley has recovered well from his pair in the first Test, while Ben Stokes has been as dogged as ever, with both bat and ball, but not perhaps as mercurial.

The fielding has been a massive difference - England have had a number of costly missed chances, while Australia have had very few. Catches win matches, they say, and certainly things could have been different if England had taken their chances or Australia had missed a few more.

What comes next?

The series may be decided, but there are still two Tests to play, and Australia are still very motivated to win them while England will continue to seek for redemption. England could still win one and draw the other to vindicate my original 3 - 1 prediction. It just doesn’t seem likely right now.

It’s become much harder to see Brendon McCullum and Ben Stokes staying on as coach and captain longer-term. Maybe they will, particularly if they can avoid the whitewash. Stokes has said he wants to continue, and it’s hard to fault his personal effort so far. But some on the England team may never play again after this series, and the defeat might even be big enough to bury the fabled Bazball philosophy.

In the Australian camp, they will at some point need to do something about their ageing team. This series they’ve shown they have the depth to replace their first choice players where needed - but their replacements mostly haven’t been young either. When the next home Ashes comes round, I imagine they’ll have quite a different team, and we’ll see how that goes.

For now, though, they’ve not only retained the Ashes but won each Test decisively, so there’s much to celebrate.

I’m not sure whether I’ll comment about the remaining two Tests. Once it became clear the series was definitely swinging Australia’s way, I intended to write about it immediately after they won the series rather than waiting till the end of the series. The sooner that happened, the greater the blow it would be to the Bazball philosophy. We will see whether that blow proves terminal.

I include below the notes I wrote on the three Tests as they unfolded.

Notes on the First Test

OK, that was an up and down Test. Very eventful for a mere two days…

In the middle of the first day I was feeling the deja vu. Just like with India last year, Australia had bowled England out fairly cheaply at Perth - could they capitalise on it with the bat? Then at the end of the day, they were a similar amount behind with one wicket in hand. It’s just that England wasn’t then able to bat Australia out of the game like India successfully did.

And so at the end of that first day, I was fully prepared to have to write the mea culpa “Yes, I knew England’s pace attack was a big part of their planning - and I also knew that having Stokes fit to bowl was a big part of it - but I didn’t really appreciate how significantly it would change the game”. And I may still have to write those words - just not about this particular match.

And so, Australia bowled England out fairly cheaply again, and with Head dominant Australia were about half-way to the target with nine wickets in hand. I had to be away from the score till the end of the day. Checking the scorecard, I thought I was prepared for anything - Australia having collapsed and handed back the advantage to England, Australia having set themselves up nicely for a victory the following day, or almost anything in between. What I wasn’t prepared for was the match being over. And so my first sight of the scorecard was “Australia won by 8 wickets” and I was going “What?!?!?”

Turned out that it wasn’t just Head, but also Labuschagne who’d got into the quick scoring. I fully expected Head to play at least one such match-defining innings this series. I just didn’t expect it to be that match, and I didn’t expect it to be played as opener.

Just to give a clue of how devastating this might be, Australia even managed to pinch England’s record of “fastest chase over 200”.

From the start, I’ve firmly believed that Australia’s best response to Bazball is playing to their strengths (with both bat and ball), not just copying Bazball. And so I do want to see the likes of Smith, Khawaja and Labuschagne batting time in later Tests. Given the fragility of the English attack (potential fragility, anyway), making them bowl long spells could help win not just one Test but the entire series. But Head’s way of play is one of Australia’s strengths, and perhaps there’s a lot of psychological trauma for England being soundly beaten with their own weapons in a game where they’d been in front mere hours before.

It’s not all good, of course. Fans with tickets on day 1 and 2 will have seen some fascinating cricket. Fans with tickets for later days will get a refund, but it’s not the same. And Cricket Australia are expecting a massive loss from the Test.

One of the things said about Bazball was that it was meant to be entertaining, and I think it can be. They drew record crowds the first couple of days - but everyone might have been happier with slightly smaller crowds each day for five days… Nowadays if you want weekend crowds it’s rarely wise scheduling a five day Test to start on a Wednesday. But starting on a Friday should be fine…

Let’s end with one of the harshest comments I saw:

They came to Australia searching for immortality. And no one will forget what they did here today. (SOURCE)

It’s one Test out of five. Way too early to write England off. But the fact is - had Australia lost the first match, I’d have backed them to come back and win the series anyway. I think it will be harder for England. Congratulations if they achieve it, of course, but it surely would need a lot to go their way.

Second Test preview

So, we’ve had our lengthened break between Tests, and now another one is coming up. Like I said at the end of the last Test, it’s definitely too early to write England off - but I think this match strongly favours Australia:

  • Strong home record.
  • Strong Gabba record.
  • Strong day/night, pink ball Test record.

England could certainly win it. But if they don’t, 2 - 0 will be difficult to come back from…

Notes on Second Test

Definite congratulations to Joe Root for getting his century. I didn’t know whether he would get a century this series or not, but he was clearly far too good a batsman to not have a century in Australia. He didn’t get a lot of support from the rest of his team, though…

I thought Australia had a reasonable chance of beating England’s first innings score. And I definitely thought they had a good chance of batting more overs than England. What I wasn’t prepared for was Australia as a team batting faster than England. Well, on the second day, at least.

They took the lead at speed, then the tail batted time the following day to give Australia a big first innings lead and get England playing under lights with the new ball. In a piece of interesting trivia, all eleven players got to double figures, and Starc even top-scored to add to his bowling heroics. It was a good plan with pretty near perfect execution.

I said at the start of England’s second innings it felt like they could lose by an innings, and would probably be 5 down before they drew level with Australia. It happened exactly as I predicted - when Brook was the fifth batsman out, England were still trailing by 54. Australia may only have one of their Big Four bowlers this Test, but as a team they’ve certainly put on a strong bowling performance.

By the end of the day, England were 43 behind with only four wickets in hand. Yes, technically they could still win it. But it would be difficult.

The fourth day confirmed that there would be no miraculous victory. Captain Stokes and Will Jacks resisted longer than I expected, but the Australian batters were still able to knock off the runs with comparative ease.

It strikes me as an interesting irony that, two Tests in, Australia have done pretty much everything England said they were going to do. In particular:

  1. Have pace bowlers who can bowl at pace, build pressure, and take wickets? Check.

  2. Have batters who can score quickly, but can also bat time when the match situation calls for it? Check.

Both Joe Root and Ben Stokes have the ability to play slower when the match situation requires it. But I’m not clear how many of the others do. Previously, Ben Foakes as keeper had been one of the players who could help them recover with the bat. Jamie Smith came in, and seemed to be doing very well with both bat and gloves. But perhaps not quite so well this series.

And so after 6 days of cricket, having spent years building up to take back the Ashes, technically the dream isn’t quite dead. But at 0 - 2 down it’s definitely on life support… England look much more on track to match previous series than I expected.

Notes on the Third Test

By the end of the first day, it was clear that Australia had squandered opportunities with the bat. Had they opened the door to a famous England victory, or merely kept England in the game when they could have landed the killer blow? At the start of the day, 400 had seemed not just a minimum but readily achievable. By the end of the day it seemed much more realistic to aim for 350 - which they did actually reach on the second day, thanks to another Starc fifty.

It then became clear that England were consistently losing their wickets for fewer runs than the Australian equivalent. Two more of Australia’s Big Four had come into the team - Nathan Lyon and Captain Cummins - and they’d both had an impact. By the end of the second day it was England’s turn to be eight down, and so far behind Australia that an Australian win seemed the only likely outcome.

They narrowed the gap far more than I expected on day 3, thanks to a gritty fifty from Captain Stokes and a maiden fifty to Jos Archer to match Starc and complement his first innings 5-for. It still only felt like it was delaying the inevitable, and so it proved - Adelaide home-town heroes Head and Carey combined to put Australia in a dominant position while I was at the zoo for a work Christmas party. By the end of the day, Australia had six wickets in hand, and had a lead which felt enough even if England finished them quickly the following day. There were some interesting DRS decisions - affecting both sides - but overall Australia had been the better team with the bat, with the ball, and in the field.

Day 4 did in fact see England cutting through Australia fairly quickly and settling down in the chase after a few early wickets - then Nathan Lyon took three wickets to leave Australia overwhelmingly on top at the end of the day. It was a time to wonder what might have been for England if they could have played their premier spinner - or, for that matter, if they’d held some of their catches.

Day 5 was another day where from the start technically England could have won, but it didn’t seem likely. An unfortunate injury to Nathan Lyon and some good batting made me start thinking “Surely they can’t chase this?”, but in the end Starc and the Australian fielders combined to give Australia a comfortable victory.

Thoughts on Player of the Series

We’re now more than halfway through the series. Mitchell Starc surely has to be the front runner - after two Tests many, including me, were saying “Has he already done enough?” At that point he had two amazing bowling performances, a fifty that was top score for the innings, and both Player of the Match awards. He might not have continued the Player of the Match streak this match, but he added another fifty and took useful wickets. And there’s no indication he’s done yet.

Obviously there are still two more Tests for others to stake their claims, but right now I think there are only two other candidates:

  1. Travis Head: He has hit two astonishing second innings centuries that took Australia from “somewhat on top” to “completely in charge”.

  2. Alex Carey: He’s shown both brilliant keeping and great batting. This match, he took Player of the Match for batting that kept Australia in the game in the game in the first innings, then in partnership with Head put them in charge in the second innings.

Several England players have had good individual performances, but I don’t think any of them have performed over multiple tests - plus it’s much harder to justify a Player of the Series award if your team has lost the series. Perhaps Stokes is the outstanding player, having contributed with the ball in the first Test and then with the bat in the remaining two Tests. But those innings, useful as they were, have ended up more “damage control” than “domination”.