To a certain extent it's like saying that we should only be concerned with the things we can control and language like that has been around in sporting organisations for generations now. The English team (or their media throng and Morgan etc.) added that they would certainly have won if Australia hadn't cheated and if Australia had abided by some so-called spirit of the game conventions.
But in the spirit argument, England well and truly know that Australia has taken a ruthless approach to cricket since at least the 1970s and England themselves have done exactly the same in response. In response to cheating, well, sticky mint induced reverse swing may have affected the outcome of a test match or two back in the day, as have bottle tops and dirt (although I also believe that zinc cream and sunscreen might have similar impact). I reckon that the balls from the 1980s would still reek of coconut reef tan.
But Bazball as a tactic is something that has existed for a long time and it certainly isn't exclusive to England under McCallum. The West Indies teams of the 80s under Lloyd and Richards were ruthless, but even more dominant because there were enough batters in the teams with the skills to pull it off match after match.
The real defining element of England's Bazball era is that they crow like they are the greatest ever when they won, and they crow like they won even when they lose, with claims like they should have won anyway.
