Like everyone else here [probably with one exception], I've been enjoying
the ride while waiting for the wheels to come off, as they are bound to
on occasion. But a few years back, when England were regularly 23-3
after 12 overs, I proposed that we should open with Hales and Roy. We
would still commonly be 23-3 [so no better, no worse] but after three
overs rather than 12 [which scarcely matters]; but once in a series we
would be 200-0 at lunch on the first day, with the opposition in tatters
and thoroughly demoralised.

Well, 506-4 on day 1 with a 233 opening stand is a pretty decent
approximation. To the credit of Pakistan and to the benefit of cricket,
the opposition weren't demoralised, and we had a really entertaining
series. But I think it least I can claim a little credit for proposing
a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing". Effectively, bar a change
of names, we now have an England team consisting of

Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, ...

plus a few bowlers for the tail.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Schubert

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 15:15:26 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>I can claim a little credit for proposing
>a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing".

Perfectly reasonably.

Many wondered whether it could actually work in practice, and now we
know: it can. Like you, I doubt it can "work" all the time, in that I
can't see how it leads to guaranteeing a win in every match. But if it
leads to an overall improvement on the net balance so that there are
at least more wins than losses most of the time, then more
entertainment all of the time seems like a very acceptable price for
having one's assumptions challenged every match.

Cheers,

Mike

And Merry thing and what have you to anyone who wants it.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 17:15:35 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 15:15:26 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I can claim a little credit for proposing
>>a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing".
>
>Perfectly reasonably.
>
>Many wondered whether it could actually work in practice, and now we
>know: it can. Like you, I doubt it can "work" all the time, in that I
>can't see how it leads to guaranteeing a win in every match. But if it
>leads to an overall improvement on the net balance so that there are
>at least more wins than losses most of the time, then more
>entertainment all of the time seems like a very acceptable price for
>having one's assumptions challenged every match.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>
>And Merry thing and what have you to anyone who wants it.

Granville from Lancashire coined the phrase Gaelic cricket for our
efforts. We didn't have much skill or ability but every batsman would
swing the bat like he wanted to knock the ball to connaught. Be brave
GAA style.

England is playing Gaelic cricket, but they have the ability to make
it work.

max.it

In message <to752g$1mi7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Walker
<anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Like everyone else here [probably with one exception], I've been enjoying
>the ride while waiting for the wheels to come off, as they are bound to
>on occasion. But a few years back, when England were regularly 23-3
>after 12 overs, I proposed that we should open with Hales and Roy. We
>would still commonly be 23-3 [so no better, no worse] but after three
>overs rather than 12 [which scarcely matters]; but once in a series we
>would be 200-0 at lunch on the first day, with the opposition in tatters
>and thoroughly demoralised.
>
> Well, 506-4 on day 1 with a 233 opening stand is a pretty decent
>approximation. To the credit of Pakistan and to the benefit of cricket,
>the opposition weren't demoralised, and we had a really entertaining
>series.

If they'd had Shaheen and Haris fit, I wonder how things would have
gone.

> But I think it least I can claim a little credit for proposing
>a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing". Effectively, bar a change
>of names, we now have an England team consisting of
>
> Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, ...
>
>plus a few bowlers for the tail.
>

:)

It's actually Hales, Roy, Root, Hales, Roy, Hales. Ironically it was
Root who was the least successful.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Saturday, 24 December 2022 at 19:06:24 UTC, John Hall wrote:

> If they'd had Shaheen and Haris fit, I wonder how things would have
> gone.

Similarly, I wonder how we'll Bazball the seasoned and skilful Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Lyon et al. - mind you we've already seen what happens when you go at them stupidly, viz Stokes at Headingley so I guess at the very least it'll be entertaining.

Richard

Op zaterdag 24 december 2022 om 16:15:30 UTC+1 schreef Andy Walker:
> Like everyone else here [probably with one exception], I've been enjoying
> the ride while waiting for the wheels to come off, as they are bound to
> on occasion. But a few years back, when England were regularly 23-3
> after 12 overs, I proposed that we should open with Hales and Roy. We
> would still commonly be 23-3 [so no better, no worse] but after three
> overs rather than 12 [which scarcely matters]; but once in a series we
> would be 200-0 at lunch on the first day, with the opposition in tatters
> and thoroughly demoralised.

Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach? ISTR he was also of the opinion that it was better to be 50-3 after 6 overs than after 20. He couldn't ask Cook to change his approach because, well, it was Cook, but he did order the other opening batsmen to start whacking it first ball. This ended Compton's career, and gave us a whole line of opening batsmen (Lyth, Hales, Roy, Robson...) who kept getting out early, but hardly ever went on to push England up to 140-1 by lunch on day one.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that it is not enough to ask a batsman to hit out from ball one. Something else is needed, too. I do not know what that is, but evidently, Stokes and McCullum do.

RtH
>
> Well, 506-4 on day 1 with a 233 opening stand is a pretty decent
> approximation. To the credit of Pakistan and to the benefit of cricket,
> the opposition weren't demoralised, and we had a really entertaining
> series. But I think it least I can claim a little credit for proposing
> a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing". Effectively, bar a change
> of names, we now have an England team consisting of
>
> Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, ...
>
> plus a few bowlers for the tail.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Schubert

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:55:20 AM UTC, rter...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 24 december 2022 om 16:15:30 UTC+1 schreef Andy Walker:
> > Like everyone else here [probably with one exception], I've been enjoying
> > the ride while waiting for the wheels to come off, as they are bound to
> > on occasion. But a few years back, when England were regularly 23-3
> > after 12 overs, I proposed that we should open with Hales and Roy. We
> > would still commonly be 23-3 [so no better, no worse] but after three
> > overs rather than 12 [which scarcely matters]; but once in a series we
> > would be 200-0 at lunch on the first day, with the opposition in tatters
> > and thoroughly demoralised.
> Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach? ISTR he was also of the opinion that it was better to be 50-3 after 6 overs than after 20. He couldn't ask Cook to change his approach because, well, it was Cook, but he did order the other opening batsmen to start whacking it first ball. This ended Compton's career, and gave us a whole line of opening batsmen (Lyth, Hales, Roy, Robson...) who kept getting out early, but hardly ever went on to push England up to 140-1 by lunch on day one.

yes and if i remember rightly, hales lost all his attacking verve in an effort to avoid getting
out early in tests, and roy struggled likewise.

>
> The point I guess I'm trying to make is that it is not enough to ask a batsman to hit out from ball one. Something else is needed, too. I do not know what that is, but evidently, Stokes and McCullum do.
>
> RtH
> >

yes they clearly have made a big difference.

I notice that NZ failed to overcome PAk at Karachi playing traditional old style cricket
and ran out of time chasing a 5th day win, partly due to light and shakeel and wasim
8th wkt stand. however i suspect that kane was more focused on getting his 200
and not losing, as they laboriously compiled 600 over nearly 200 overs. Maybe the
pitch wasnt helping the spinners quite so much either.

OTOH Oz have beaten Pak Windies and SA fairly easily and even in 2 days without
the all or nothing approach and without having to risk losing in order to win. I dont
think its been quite so exciting to watch for the neutral, but i expect most
supporters wouldnt mind their team steamroll the opposition as oz have in their
last 4 tests.

happy new year

mike

On 12/28/2022 3:55 AM, Robbert ter Hart wrote:
> Op zaterdag 24 december 2022 om 16:15:30 UTC+1 schreef Andy Walker:
>> Like everyone else here [probably with one exception], I've been enjoying
>> the ride while waiting for the wheels to come off, as they are bound to
>> on occasion. But a few years back, when England were regularly 23-3
>> after 12 overs, I proposed that we should open with Hales and Roy. We
>> would still commonly be 23-3 [so no better, no worse] but after three
>> overs rather than 12 [which scarcely matters]; but once in a series we
>> would be 200-0 at lunch on the first day, with the opposition in tatters
>> and thoroughly demoralised.
>
> Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach? ISTR he was also of the opinion that it was better to be 50-3 after 6 overs than after 20. He couldn't ask Cook to change his approach because, well, it was Cook, but he did order the other opening batsmen to start whacking it first ball. This ended Compton's career, and gave us a whole line of opening batsmen (Lyth, Hales, Roy, Robson...) who kept getting out early, but hardly ever went on to push England up to 140-1 by lunch on day one.
>
> The point I guess I'm trying to make is that it is not enough to ask a batsman to hit out from ball one. Something else is needed, too. I do not know what that is, but evidently, Stokes and McCullum do.
>
> RtH

Neither England nor any team can play bazball on ALL PITCHES, every day
all the time.

It's just NOT possible.

England might have done better than SA on the recent Gabba test pitch
and made the test more competitive with 50-50 odds of winning the test
but bazball wouldn't have worked except for may be half an hour for a
batsman or two.

>>
>> Well, 506-4 on day 1 with a 233 opening stand is a pretty decent
>> approximation. To the credit of Pakistan and to the benefit of cricket,
>> the opposition weren't demoralised, and we had a really entertaining
>> series. But I think it least I can claim a little credit for proposing
>> a form of "Bazball" before it was a "thing". Effectively, bar a change
>> of names, we now have an England team consisting of
>>
>> Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, Hales, Roy, ...
>>
>> plus a few bowlers for the tail.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
>> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
>> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Schubert

On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 03:55:18 -0800 (PST), Robbert ter Hart
<rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach? ISTR he was also of the opinion that it was better to be 50-3 after 6 overs than after 20. He couldn't ask Cook to change his approach because, well, it was Cook, but he did order the other opening batsmen to start whacking it first ball. This ended Compton's career, and gave us a whole line of opening batsmen (Lyth, Hales, Roy, Robson...) who kept getting out early, but hardly ever went on to push England up to 140-1 by lunch on day one.
>
>The point I guess I'm trying to make is that it is not enough to ask a batsman to hit out from ball one. Something else is needed, too. I do not know what that is, but evidently, Stokes and McCullum do.

The first thing they need is the ability, skills and technique to
execute aggressive batting, which Compton certainly didn't have.

The second thing they need is the assurance that getting out playing
an ultra-aggressive shot will not lead to them being dropped (and the
hint that you might get dropped if you scratch around poking
ineffectually).

The interesting bit is how you maintain a team doing this over time.
It's just about impossible for the County Championship to produce Test
batsmen in this mould. The IPL is a far better training ground for
what's required. So what's the championship for, and why was Stokes so
vocal about not reducing the number of matches?

If you listen to a lot of the top batters, they praise red-ball
cricket for equipping them with basic skills, particularly in defence,
and regard T20 as the format where you take those skills to the next
level. For bowlers, it brings conditioning for long spells and
maintaining control over line and length, and in T20 they have to
develop variations and tactical awareness to be able to bowl to a very
specific field.

As Andy Walker regularly points out, the championship has its own
objectives: it is not purely a malfunctioning factory which
occasionally turns out a Test player but a team competition for prize
money and status.

In any given championship game, there will be a few players whose
total f-c experience, if any, is from the current season. They are not
very good. (Yet.) Players who aren't very good can't play in England's
current Test syle because they don't have the basic skills, let alone
the advanced technique necessary to lap a 92mph bowler armed with a
swinging new ball over deep fine leg. For most counties in most
seasons, trying to play England-style would be wholly disastrous.

This suggests that we should not be looking at current championship
form as a guide to who is ready to play Test cricket but as a way to
identify players who could become Test players with some high-class
T20 polishing.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <0a455a59-ae94-428e-a0d3-853386485493n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> notice that NZ failed to overcome PAk at Karachi playing traditional
>old style cricket and ran out of time chasing a 5th day win, partly due
>to light and shakeel and wasim 8th wkt stand. however i suspect that
>kane was more focused on getting his 200 and not losing, as they
>laboriously compiled 600 over nearly 200 overs. Maybe the pitch wasnt
>helping the spinners quite so much either.

I noticed that too, and though that had NZ played bazball they would
probably have won.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:55:20 PM UTC+10, rter...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach?

Yeah, but as MH will tell us, Bayliss was shit because he was an Aussie who can't be trusted to coach England.

Hopefully no one tells him where Baz is from.

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 5:57:59 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <0a455a59-ae94-428e...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > notice that NZ failed to overcome PAk at Karachi playing traditional
> >old style cricket and ran out of time chasing a 5th day win, partly due
> >to light and shakeel and wasim 8th wkt stand. however i suspect that
> >kane was more focused on getting his 200 and not losing, as they
> >laboriously compiled 600 over nearly 200 overs. Maybe the pitch wasnt
> >helping the spinners quite so much either.
> I noticed that too, and though that had NZ played bazball they would
> probably have won.
> --

what i didnt notice before is that Kane isnt captain anymore,
in fact its southie.

mike

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:26:59 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:55:20 PM UTC+10, rter...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach?
> Yeah, but as MH will tell us, Bayliss was shit because he was an Aussie who can't be trusted to coach England.
>
You really need to get over yourself.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:08:37 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:26:59 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:55:20 PM UTC+10, rter...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Wasn't that also Trevor Bayliss' approach?
>> Yeah, but as MH will tell us, Bayliss was shit because he was an Aussie who can't be trusted to coach England.
>>
>You really need to get over yourself.

How would an umpire determine whether he has been successful in that
endeavour?

Cheers,

Mike