Anderson (left) will not have been happy at his role in England’s defeat in Wellington (Picture: AP)
Few events sustain suspense and excitement like a close Test match, and only one previously has been as close as New Zealand’s single-run victory over England in Wellington.
But heady as the thrill of the spectacle was, it is difficult to ignore the almost wilful way Ben Stokes’ side turned a winning position in Wellington into defeat with a flurry of reckless shots.
If that sounds curmudgeonly, let me state that Bazball – so-called after the attacking instincts of coach Brendon McCullum – has been a joy to behold these past ten months, giving a much-needed boost to England’s Test team and Test cricket in general.
I even accept the high-octane philosophy and high-risk approach which underpins it will bring occasional catastrophe. But it can’t be solely about entertainment, the result must matter.
This is where I differ from those who say the genius of the approach has been to free players from worrying about performance and results. Maybe. But any sport without some jeopardy for defeat or failure becomes just another branch of WWE where substance is trumped by hype amid a cacophony of whooping and hollering.
England were careless, not by making New Zealand follow on (though there will be criticism over Stokes’ decision to enforce that), but in the way they allowed a second-rate attack to bounce them out on a sluggish pitch.
Joe Root (left) and Ben Stokes chat with Kane Williamson (right) after day five of the second Test against New Zealand (Picture: Shutterstock)
Batters don’t tend to get out playing back-foot shots without an element of careless abandon in their stroke. Yet, somehow, eight England players succumbed to short-pitched balls in their second innings, a ridiculous victim count on a pitch so sluggish bowlers had to telegraph their intent.
New Zealand’s bowlers huffed and puffed and banged in short, and England’s batsmen took the bait like gullible goldfish starved of attention. How else do you explain a collapse to 80 for five; then a recovery to 201 for five (a position from where England needed just 57 runs to win with Stokes and Joe Root in control); and finally a defeat by one run?
Unless they become more judicious with their strokes against the short stuff or learn to duck more often, it could prove to be Bazball’s Achilles heel.
Stuart Broad and James Anderson congratulate each other after the dismissal of Devon Conway during day three of the first Test match at Bay Oval (Picture: Getty)
Australia’s pace bowlers, ahead of this summer’s Ashes, will have taken note. That it all made for a riveting finale is undeniable. With two runs needed and England’s last pair at the crease, Jimmy Anderson, so often his team’s saviour with the ball, shaped to turn Neil Wagner off his hip for the run that would have levelled the scores. Instead, he feathered it and wicketkeeper Tom Blundell took the diving catch which levelled the series.
Afterwards, presumably as evidence of England’s new-found levity in approach, somebody pointed out Anderson was seen smiling following his dismissal. I’d be surprised. You see Anderson has previous in getting out with the match finely balanced.
In 2014, he was dismissed in similar fashion against Sri Lanka off the penultimate ball of the Test (had he survived that and the next ball, England would have drawn the match and series).
New Zealand’s Neil Wagner (centre) celebrates taking the final wicket of England’s James Anderson in Wellington (Picture: Getty)
There were tears on that occasion and he looked close to them again here, at least to start with. He knew he should not have got out to such an innocuous ball so any grin people saw was probably a grimace. Losing for him still hurts, a lot.
Humans have always made unplanned errors but a deliberate one is there being no third Test to see whether floor-the-accelerator England would prevail over follow-the-speed-limit New Zealand, or if the tortoise and the hare parable still holds true.
That is unforgivable and while many will think that short-sighted administrators must be kicking themselves, I bet they aren’t.
Many will question Ben Stokes’ decision to declare England’s first innings when he did (Picture: Getty)
Test cricket is a hard sell and while matches like this make that sell easier, many just want an easy life.
Profligate though England were, much credit should go to the fight New Zealand displayed, especially after following on.
They knew their opponent’s high-risk approach, while able to crush teams, can also come a cropper, so any lead over 150 would give them a sniff. Not that they will have foreseen their eventual victory by such a slender margin.
Some England supporters will ask why Stokes, with his side 1-0 up in the series, declared his team’s first innings on 435 for eight and why he also asked the Kiwis to follow on after their first innings of 209?
More: Sport
By batting on in their first innings and then batting again after New Zealand’s first innings, England would have reduced the prospect of defeat and with it any chances of the home side winning the match and drawing the series.
A fair point but the determination to take a draw out of consideration is the aspect of this approach I like most. Stokes made those decisions to try to win as quickly and as emphatically as possible.
You can argue they were risky, given Stokes was struggling to bowl and that two of his other bowlers are over 35 years old, but risk is what Bazball is all about.
It is just the management of that risk which needs refining so that it looks like winning is being taken seriously again.
MORE : Pink ball can’t match colour that England bring to Test arena
MORE : Attacking intent has unified England cricket team but liberated individuals
For more stories like this, check our sport page.
Follow Metro Sport for the latest news on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
‘It’s difficult to ignore the almost willful way Ben Stokes’ side turned a winning position in Wellington into defeat.’
