Blaming Bazball for England’s losses ignores excellence of India

In the binary world of the 21st century, nothing in cricket quite matches the catnip qualities of so-called Bazball. England win? Vive la révolution. England lose? See, this is a flawed concept, a naked emperor moonwalking down the street all pleased with itself.

All of which does a disservice to opponents, who in the case of India and the record 434-run shellacking they dished out in Rajkot could be forgiven for wondering why they are the canvas on which various broad brush strokes about England are painted. Test matches require two teams and Rohit Sharma’s side are a mighty fine one.

Related: ‘Jonny will come good’: England to retain Bairstow for fourth India Test

Joe Root gets out to the reverse scoop off the seamer? Bazball, you are ruining England’s best player. But what about the fact that Jasprit Bumrah, the No 1 fast bowler on the circuit, had previously penned in Root over the course of four innings, that whiplashed angle and late movement sowing far more doubt than any positive buzzwords?

England surrender on the fourth evening? Bazball you numpty. But then isn’t Ravindra Jadeja on a wearing home pitch a living nightmare for visiting batters? Australia, world Test champions no less, were turned into sashimi by the man they call Jaddu [Magic] last year, rolled for 113 in Delhi with five of them bowled in a seven-wicket slice-and-dice.

That England’s batters find themselves taking huge risks in this series is not solely down to their attacking mantra or occurring in a vacuum. India’s bowlers are forcing it with relentless accuracy, their spinners extracting greater drift and turn with it, while their batters are afforded at least one release shot per over by a spin attack still in short pants.

Then there is the broader challenge of India, an 11-year impenetrable citadel for all sides. Even with Virat Kohli absent for personal reasons, and Mohammed Shami out injured, there is depth in abundance, evidenced by Sarfaraz Khan having to churn out an absolute mountain of runs in the Ranji Trophy to simply get a sniff.

None of which is to say England are beyond reproach nor, at 2-1 down with two to play, should bedsheets be fashioned into white flags. As the players mooched around the team hotel on the day five that wasn’t, bodies sore and minds tired, there was a bit to reflect on before boarding their flight to Ranchi before Friday’s fourth Test.

Day four had been a gruelling one, no question, Yashasvi Jaiswal’s second double century of the series in the dry heat of Gujarat having fully tenderised them for chef Jadeja to work his stuff. The result was clearly alarming, only mildly offset by Mark Wood thrashing his shirt number, 33, to take the total past three figures.

Yet so much went back to earlier in the match. The dropped catch off Sharma that would have made India 47 for four on day one was a huge sliding doors moment. But chiefly it was all about day three, where an ebullient fightback through Ben Duckett’s thrilling century the previous evening was followed by the killer collapse.

The best of Bazball has not just been the conquering of the Rawalpindi road in 2022, or Zak Crawley flaying Australia to all parts of Manchester last summer, the streak of run chases or Ollie Pope’s high-wire 196 in Hyderabad when risk was rewarded. Along the way there has been adaptability to their play, a bit more nuance than some would have it.

Related: Nature of England’s third Test defeat surely spells end for Bazball rhetoric | James Wallace

A couple spring to mind. Faced with a rampant South Africa attack at Old Trafford that first summer, 1-0 down and 147 for five, Ben Stokes and Ben Foakes got heads down for a stand of 173 runs in 53.2 overs (a run rate of 3.2) on which victory was built. In the day-night Test against New Zealand in Mount Maunganui last year, knowing night-time was party time for the hard, new Kookaburra, they deliberately dropped anchor and Stuart Broad did the rest.

But when India were a man down due to Ravichandran Ashwin’s family emergency, an opportunity was presented to push the seamers into second and third spells; a chance to see if Jadeja’s clearly ginger hamstring could hold up over a long period. Instead, the instruction from Stokes was get bowling again that evening and eight wickets for 95 followed.

The comparison with Lord’s last summer, when Nathan Lyon hobbled out of the Ashes series, has been widely made. But when asked on Monday why a possible lesson from that day was not learned, and whether a move to put miles into the legs of their opponents was the true aggressive play, Brendon McCullum rejected it. “That’s not a conversation we’ve ever had because then you’re starting to put periphery thoughts into guys’ minds,” came the reply.

“The whole idea is to free them up to allow them to make good decisions in the moment, to be totally present, and to be able to then adjust their games to be able to do so.”

On one level, this is not without merit given every delivery in a Test match is a split-second event. But then how this differs from an instruction to get back bowling that evening is not immediately obvious either. It is here where, for all the positives of the past two years (and there have been plenty), some of the frustration emerges; a suspicion that machismo has become an unnecessary achilles heel.

Once again, this lumps it on England when India, through Kuldeep Yadav’s probing spell and Bumrah’s stranglehold over Root, were full value for the turnaround on the day. Not every Test match is a referendum on Bazball, provided the approach itself does not become one half of a binary choice.