- Thread starter
- #151
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Bazball 2024
- Thread starter Gavin Excell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #152
Like this?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 85,651
- 178,882
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #153
And they were "saving" test cricket from the draws and boring playing style their heroes Tavare, Gooch, Atherton, Bell and co were the driving force of for decades
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Bell?
Had an average of 57 and a strike rate of 57 and hit 15 centuries in test matches that they won. He was a fantastic player and if you were bored watching him, geez you found it hard to enjoy cricket, National bias aside
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 85,651
- 178,882
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #155
They were all great players who I loved watching
The current England players are the ones who got bored with test cricket from yesteryear and set out to save it
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
But they weren’t ‘saving’ it from this.
Their MO was to save their own cricket from itself: it was drowning in how bad and tepid it had become. Getting beaten by the West Indies was the last straw.
I think as I’ve said many times that some of the grandiose statements about saving it or whatever are yes, a bit over the top and certainly annoying.
But the players you mentioned had all enjoyed in their careers some level of success in the team (even Atherton saw a LITTLE bit).
The team that ‘current England’ followed on from were sinking without trace and they were doing it without a whimper, and taking down their best batsman in maybe 50 years with them, and two of their greatest bowlers and maybe their second best ever all-rounder.
unless they go on a streak of 13-14 wins or win everywhere home and away I don’t think anyone is going to go ‘that was a team that we all were privileged to see’ or anything stupid like that. But we keep hearing ‘oh teams were doing this a long time ago. They weren’t. Unless there was a team more aggressive than Waugh and Ponting’s Australians, no team has scored at a run rate within 1 run per over of what England has done. So if NOTHING else at all it IS unique. Success or failure, it is something no one else has tried over an extended period. So I think they’re right in saying people will remember what they’ve done. Whether it’s remembered in positive or negative terms… well that remains to be seen
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
You’re making the same point.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I don’t believe so.
The point I replied to seemed to be intimating that the ‘saving’ was being done from generations of what many people would call boring English cricketers (even though most people who enjoy cricket would actually appreciate all those players beside Tavare).
I don’t think anyone from the current England set up has disparaged or suggested that those players or teams were going about things the ‘wrong’ way or whatever or that their approach at the time needed changing.
But there is absolutely no doubt that the team which immediately preceded the current one 100 per cent needed to change. It either needed to uncover better players who played normally - but there didn’t seem to be any about - or it needed to completely revamp its approach (in addition to finding different players to implement it). So that’s what it did. And the results changed.
Obviously myself and the previous poster both agree that the hubris that’s accompanied it at times is well over the top. Considering that, say, a team like SA 2006-2015 may well be the third best test team of all time and barely ever even get mentioned in passing discussions (they lost 2 series in 29 from memory and none away) the idea of talking about a current side as a team that will go down in history is laughable.
But it’s indisputable that they HAVE done something no other team has done and if you removed the World Cup of 1996 from Sri Lanka’s resume - and yes I realise that’s a big caveat to make, it’s possible to make a comparison between what they did to one day cricket in the 1990s to what England is doing now, IF it was to become something that actually changed the game to any degree. At any rate people will remember it as being an ‘era’ of English cricket where they had a specific plan that no one had tried to any great, team-wide extent for a prolonged period.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
Yes, that is what the original post meant. Those players were well liked and highly regarded. You agree.
Rabish Binney
Left out overnight
Yep, Bell was a great batsman IMHO.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
His first 50 tests probably killed off his chances of taking the next step. As they do for a lot of players I guess, but he averaged less than 39 after his 50th match.
From then on over 68 matches he averaged 46 including 43 against Australia over 20 games, 57 against India and 45 against South Africa and scored away hundreds against each. Had the makings of an exquisite player if he had reached his peak a bit earlier
My rough rule of thumb is 40-49 average is good, above 50 great (over time) plus two intangibles:
1. Did I hate seeing this batter walking in against my team (e.g. Tendulkar, Kohli, Smith)
2. Style (e.g. Lara, Richards)
1. Did I hate seeing this batter walking in against my team (e.g. Tendulkar, Kohli, Smith)
2. Style (e.g. Lara, Richards)
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
There is one other one that doesn’t get mentioned often enough anymore I don’t think since this group of players came along like KL Rahul and Aiden Markram who play really good and sometimes great (especially Markram) innings but don’t have anything like the record to back it up.
That is the players like VVS Laxman who had a good record - a mid 40s average, AND the great innings to back it up, just didn’t quite have the consistency of maybe 40-80 scores or ‘regular’ hundreds to pad that average out like the ‘great’ players.
I mean just against Australia alone Laxman played what I would consider at least 4 absolutely exceptional innings - the 281 obviously, the 167 at the SCG which although ultimately inconsequential was mind-blowingly good, his 148 when India were 4-80 after Australia posted 550 at Adelaide in 2003-04, overshadowed by Dravid’s double, they batted all day and put on 300 and ultimately won the test, and the Mohali test where they needed 220 and were 8-120 and he batted with a runner and made 73 not out with Ishant Sharma and Pragyan Ojha to win by a wicket. Maybe even 5 if you count the century at 1-8 during the Monkeygate test after Australia piled on nearly 500 batting first, albeit conditions made it fairly easy.
Made 124* at 3-down for effectively minus-60 to get India to a draw in Napier and batted the entire last day.
103* at 4-62 chasing 260 in the fourth innings at the P. Sara after Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar had fallen.
104 against Murali on a turner in Ahmedabad where Harbhajan and Kumble were doing all sorts with the ball.
It’s hard to categorise a player like him but he was indeed an exceptional batsman
- May 5, 2016
- 52,384
- 59,325
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Graeme smith probably another you could put in that group. Especially with his fourth innings record and his doubles against England
The didn't close the deal BECAUSE they Bazballed....
Look at the corresponding Test against India last year. After the first innings the situation was basically the same, but India batted "properly" to put 500 on and give us absolutely no chance of winning. And it wasn't like they were stodging around....they scored at 3.5 an over and left themselves over two full days to close the deal.
England seem to be locked into this mentality that there's either Bazball or there's crabbing along at less than a run per over. There seems to be no middle ground for them at all.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I wasn't debating on whether Bazball was good or bad though.
It's still only 1 nil.
Whether Bazball succeeds or not will be determined by the end result of the series.
Not 1 test match.
Last edited:
- Sep 3, 2019
- 35,207
- 101,131
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The "spirit of cricket"
Kapow!!!
Brownlow Medallist
I've got my questions about "Bazball". In fairness it's one giant question. There is definitely a lot to praise but some glaring fallacies in a bit of that praise.
But, I still think they can and will win this series and if they achieve that then it will validate the philosophy for it's chosen objective (i.e. win an ashes series in Australia). Given a lot of the rhetoric has been about that being the true objective of this philosophy that will also be its measure of success and so far I haven't seen anything to say it won't achieve that.
Australia weren't exactly convincing in Perth. Both sides had points in the test where they not only could've decisively killed off the opposition but could've really hurt them for the entire series by wearing down and grinding the bowlers into the dust but completely blew it due to poor batting and some very good fast bowling on a bouncy deck. Australia kind of felt more like the winner of musical chairs in that conditions improved and the situation disheartening enough to blast ourselves over the line.
But, lets see. This is the defining series for this team and philosophy, probably McCullums entire legacy. I think we should wait until the last run is scored/wicket falls/stumps is called before making an assessment for this 4 year cycle of test fixtures.
But, I still think they can and will win this series and if they achieve that then it will validate the philosophy for it's chosen objective (i.e. win an ashes series in Australia). Given a lot of the rhetoric has been about that being the true objective of this philosophy that will also be its measure of success and so far I haven't seen anything to say it won't achieve that.
Australia weren't exactly convincing in Perth. Both sides had points in the test where they not only could've decisively killed off the opposition but could've really hurt them for the entire series by wearing down and grinding the bowlers into the dust but completely blew it due to poor batting and some very good fast bowling on a bouncy deck. Australia kind of felt more like the winner of musical chairs in that conditions improved and the situation disheartening enough to blast ourselves over the line.
But, lets see. This is the defining series for this team and philosophy, probably McCullums entire legacy. I think we should wait until the last run is scored/wicket falls/stumps is called before making an assessment for this 4 year cycle of test fixtures.
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 8,749
- 5,746
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
They don't have the pitches in Australia to bazball it... maby back in the 2000's when we got 2 big 1st innings scores and batting become hard back end of the game... now aday batting is hard day 1
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 85,651
- 178,882
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #174
When Jamie Siddons coached the Redbacks 10 years ago or whenever it was, he revamped their approach to batting.
Preached a full swing of the bat
Attacking mindset
All batters had to have bigger backlifts with the bat coiled over their shoulder like John Daly
A half volley is a half volley, whether it's your first ball or 51st ball. Needs to go the journey was the mindset. Got rolled out with the Redbacks and all the way through the junior state squads.
His justification was that we'd been terrible for so long we had to try something different.
It created the same sort of division Bazball has. Purists sceptical, some bought in. It suited a few players eg Travis Head who was coming through. Others couldn't bat that way and just stayed with their style eg Callum Ferguson.
Almost a prelude to Bazball, like Iggy & the Stooges to punk
Preached a full swing of the bat
Attacking mindset
All batters had to have bigger backlifts with the bat coiled over their shoulder like John Daly
A half volley is a half volley, whether it's your first ball or 51st ball. Needs to go the journey was the mindset. Got rolled out with the Redbacks and all the way through the junior state squads.
His justification was that we'd been terrible for so long we had to try something different.
It created the same sort of division Bazball has. Purists sceptical, some bought in. It suited a few players eg Travis Head who was coming through. Others couldn't bat that way and just stayed with their style eg Callum Ferguson.
Almost a prelude to Bazball, like Iggy & the Stooges to punk
