Over the last few weeks, I have been continually asked to justify my incessant ramblings on the England cricket team (including by several cricket writers in the press).
Since they are incessant ramblings - and that is basically what a blog is for, is it not? - I thought I would duly oblige in the wake of the latest Baz-balls-up in Hamilton.
The attitude has been "we won the series, everything is fine". This seems to be the ECB line to take and (in combination with various other ECB "lines") has been parroted in the last few days by a number of respected cricket journalists who either should know better, are incapable of independent thought, or are giving the current setup an easy ride (presumably upon pain of ECB sanction).
After the Pakistan capitulation, where Pakistan learnt from England's success in the first test (Brook and Root's mammoth hundreds were noticeably boundary-shy, and Saud Shakeel and others duly obliged in the second and third tests with similar lots-of-singles hundreds), England had a total brain explosion when facing Sajid Khan and Noman Ali, who are hardly Ashwin and Jadeja, and averaged a pathetic 21.10 and 13.85 against them only.
In fact, that 4-1 loss to India at the start of the year prompted a "Bazball reset", the phrase being coined by most of the media to explain how Jonny Bairstow, Ben Foakes, Ollie Robinson, and to a lesser extent Jack Leach and James Anderson, were unceremoniously dumped despite not doing a whole lot wrong. In their place came Jamie Smith, Gus Atkinson, Shoaib Bashir, and recalls for Matt Potts and Olly Stone.
Firstly, the Gus Atkinson pick was not a Bazball stab-in-the-dark pick despite the press's insistence otherwise. Atkinson was on the trip to India and he should have probably played the last Test. He has done very well and a lot of column inches have been written about him, so I won't repeat what has already been said on that front. However, I will dispute the idea Anderson was dumped (no, let's be honest - sacked) and Atkinson "replaced" him. Atkinson had been hammering the door down for at least a year and was one of the only people to leave the Cricket World Cup with his reputation enhanced.
Second, there has been a complete lack of scrutiny on the Bashir decision to pick him over Jack Leach. Despite playing all but two Tests this year (and one of which was due to visa issues), his numbers are extremely poor in both economy rate and average. "Ah," their defenders say, "he is a work in progress, he'll get better". But will he? We were here 10 years ago with Moeen Ali. Then, as now, he was seen a dodgy off spinner with "potential" (a fancy word for not actually having achieved anything). He ended up being a bits-and-pieces player and neither his batting nor bowling numbers justified his continued inclusion in the side over and above others, initially Gareth Batty but then Adil Rashid and Jack Leach too. His economy rate, much like Bashir's, was extremely expensive for an off spinner, and forced England to pick a fourth seamer when Stokes was unavailable (including in last year's Ashes), as he could never tie down one end and allow three quicks to rotate at the other. There have been 35 Tests where Stokes and Leach have played together. Stokes, in these matches, bowls just 13.5 overs per Test. When Stokes plays without Leach (75 Tests), he bowls, on average, 20.5 overs per Test. That's a huge strain on Stokes's body and physique. Bashir's numbers themselves deserve more scrutiny. An average of 40.16 from 15 Tests (including 6 in Asia!) and an economy rate of 3.75 is just poor, however you cut it. His numbers are especially poor in the second half of the year (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and New Zealand), where he averages 50.26 and an economy rate of 3.93. That is just poor, however you cut it.
The excuse here is that Bashir is a better option than Leach in Australia, but I am entirely unclear where the notion has come from that off spin is what is needed in Australia. (This brainrot seems to have also affected the West Indies, who selected Roston Chase in their 2022-23 tour of Australia over their left arm spinners, and Chase duly returned figures of 3 wickets @ 104.33). Off spin in the 21st century is a death sentence in Australia. Only five off spinners have taken 10 wickets in Australia this century. Three of them are Australian. Graeme Swann is one, but he averaged 52.59 - are England seriously saying they think Bashir can do better than Swann!?
And at this point Bashir's defenders (as indeed Moeen Ali's) will point to strike rate and how it is more important than averages or economy. Well that is categorically disproven if you plot 2024's wicket takers on a graph, strike rate vs average. Those with the best averages had the best strike rates so you cannot make the Moeen Ali argument to defend Bashir this time round.
 |
| Bowl Strike Rate (x) vs Bowl Avg (y), min 10 wkts |
Whilst we're on the subject of silly selections, we need to talk about the selection of Josh Hull, who the media seem to have forgotten about. It was a proper stab in the dark and did not work out, especially if (like me) you were unlucky enough to watch his floaty half-volleys at The Oval. Yet I have seen virtually no scrutiny and criticism of this decision.
There is always an excuse for this England side when things don't go wrong:
"We won the series, so the brain explosion in Hamilton doesn't matter.""We won the series, so the capitulation against Sri Lanka at The Oval doesn't matter.""We're not back in Asia until February 2027, so the Pakistan series loss doesn't matter.""Shoaib Bashir's numbers may be dismal but his release height and golf handicap are great, which is more important.""Zak Crawley has great potential and knows Rob Key, it doesn't matter that he's much worse than Rory Burns."
"We're never going to win the World Test Championship, so it doesn't matter about over rates or dead rubbers."
"It doesn't matter that we lost by 400 runs, we're saving Test cricket."
"James Anderson is too old, it doesn't matter Chris Woakes is slower than him."
Ah yes, GOLF. Bloody golf. You got the sense at various times that England would rather be on the golf course than playing cricket or winning Tests. The final day at Hamilton being a good example - Bethell and Root had played well in the morning, but after lunch McCullum had seemingly ordered them to get out as quickly as possible, and Ollie Pope, Brydon Carse, Gus Atkinson, and Shoaib Bashir duly obliged by perishing in the deep (or in Pope's case, reverse scooping).
We want to see England care about every Test. Is that so much to ask? Well, if you listen to Ben Stokes, it is. The England captain apparently "doesn't understand" the WTC (another comment that didn't get anywhere near as much criticism as it should have done) and a side of England's resources and calibre should have done much better. Their WTC record for 2023-25 finished up as Played 22, Won 11, Lost 10, Drawn 1. Ignoring any over rate penalties for the moment, that gives them 136 points out of a possible 264 and just a 51.5% score. The WTC's detractors say it's not fair as England have a harder fixture list but this assessment is "skibidi toilet", I believe the correct Gen Alpha phrase is, especially for Australia and India, who also had to play 10 Tests against the other two "big three" nations. Indeed, apart from Bangladesh and South Africa, every team played at least two of the "big three" (New Zealand and the West Indies had the misfortune of playing all three of them). Is it so much to ask for England to get 60%, and thus have a good chance of qualifying for the final? A side of our resources ought to be able to do so, right? Flipping the results at The Oval, one of the two Pakistan capitulations, and the Hamilton brain explosion would give England a much better record of W14 L7 D1, and even with a few over rate points losses this would be likely to qualify for the final.
After the Pakistan capitulation I said to George Dobell at The Cricketer that England had been given an easy ride by the media. And he agreed with me.
I am not going to name and shame journalists and pundits here but the extent to which everyone has been singing from the same hymn sheet, that everything is fine, England are having great fun, McCullum has shown "ruthlessness" in selection decisions (a word that bizarrely came up in two very similar articles in two very different publications by two very well respected journalists), that Ollie Pope is the antichrist whilst Zak Crawley, Jacob Bethell, and Shoaib Bashir represent the second coming, and that the future is bright for England.
Ollie Pope cannot win, it would seem. Following a feast-or-famine series in India he then followed that up with an excellent series against the West Indies - 1x 100 and 2x 50; only once did he fail to pass 50 - but his detractors remained in the press. The century was described as a "poor" one as he was dropped twice along the way (I notice this criticism has not been applied to Harry Brook's century in Christchurch two weeks ago, when he was dropped five times). Two poor Tests against Sri Lanka followed and the knives came out for him again, and even 154 in the final Test wasn't enough for his critics. A poor series against Pakistan saw the great and good of cricket calling for him to face the axe, and now I was astonished to read articles saying that it is somehow a bad thing he has got runs batting down the order against New Zealand whilst keeping wicket and vice-captaining.
Anyone - and that includes any journalist or pundit reading this rant - who thinks Crawley should be retained and Pope dropped needs to give their head a wobble.
Why have I never liked Crawley? Simple - I believe he is keeping better players out of the side. I declare my interest as Rory Burns's biggest fan, but I would rather see Keaton Jennings in his place too. It's also interesting to me that New Zealand are Crawley's worst team (avg 10.42) whilst they are Rory Burns's best team (avg 60.28). In fact, since his debut, only nine England players average less than Crawley against New Zealand - and that includes the bowlers. Perhaps most tellingly, in that time period Crawley is out-averaged by James Anderson against New Zealand. Much like Bashir, Crawley's returns have got worse throughout the year, averaging 24.75 against the West Indies, 27.80 against Pakistan, and 8.66 against New Zealand. In the Crowe-Thorpe Trophy Crawley's average ranks 20th of 25 players on either side: only Shoaib Bashir (8.00), Devon Conway (5.25), Matt Henry (5.16), Will O'Rourke (3.66), and Matt Potts (0.50) averaged less than he did. Two of those five (Bashir and O'Rourke) are regarded as rabbits. But the media are not questioning Crawley's place in the side. Maybe Rob Key and/or the ICC has leaned unduly on the media (which would technically be a breach of Article 10 of the ECHR) and thus the media are silenced. Or the media have just been suffering from collective Bazball-itis.
Either way, the need to protect Rob Key's mate has seen the end of the international careers of Dan Lawrence (unfairly asked to open in his place), Rory Burns, and presumably Dom Sibley and Haseeb Hameed too, although those last two are young enough to force themselves back in... in theory. I say "in theory" as England have had a habit for about 20 years now of picking players before they are ready, then they fail and are discarded forever despite any improvement they subsequently make. I am not saying that young players should be protected from being dropped - but the door should not be closed on them. Hameed, Sibley, and Lawrence can be added to the Liam Dawson collection of players who will now never return having been picked well before their time. In chronological order, England have picked 42 players for their Test debuts in the 21st century before the age of 24. The list is here if you want to look at it in full. Very few of these players were dropped, then later recalled. You will no doubt look at that list and go "well, their test careers prove they will never be good enough", but that merely proves the argument - you are saying they can never, ever improve, and should never be picked again.
Are England better now than they were in India? No. The Pakistan Baz-balls-up proved that. And although England beat New Zealand 2-1, I feel very empty about it and unenthused. The first test was so poor from New Zealand that you genuinely wondered if the game had been fixed, dropping Harry Brook five times and handing wickets out to Shoaib Bashir like a badly-constructed, unfunny metaphor. Bethell's numbers did very well but his defensive technique when facing right arm around the wicket was lacking. Kemar Roach found him out in the County Championship this way in the summer, and his first innings at Christchurch was equally poor. Whilst he deserves more time in the side, it has been pointed out to me that as he is in the IPL for England's next Test against Zimbabwe, that solves England's selection conundrum of picking three from Crawley, Bethell, Pope, and Smith. What a convenience!
The dot ball percentages I alluded to earlier perhaps prove my notion of "work smarter, not harder". As you can see from the below graph, those with lower dot ball percentages had higher averages this year (minimum 200 runs):
 |
| Dot ball % (x) vs Bat Avg (y), min 200 runs |
But proving this more than anything is the correlation between dismissal rate and average. You will note that the players with the best averages have the most balls between dismissals. You may consider this to be self-evident, but the one to look at here is Duckett - it proves strike rate is not everything. The best averages have been from the "normal" players, who bat a decent but not too fast tempo.
 |
| Strike Rate (x) vs Bat Avg (y), min 200 runs |
 |
| Dismissal rate (x) vs Bat Avg (y), min 200 runs |
And here is a complex chart showing all three data sets.
 |
| Strike Rate (x) vs Dismissal Rate (y) vs Bat Avg (bubble size), min 200 runs |
I have a bad feeling I am going to be sat here in 12 months' time after another away Ashes drubbing, saying "I told you so".
