Bazball and the Collins Dictionary

Remove this Banner Ad

010203

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 25, 2017
11,987
10,599
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The term "Bazball" is set to be listed in upcoming editions of Collins Dictionaries after being named as one of Collins 10 most popular words of the year.

Bazball will be defined as ‘a style of Test cricket in which the batting side attempts to gain the initiative by playing in a highly aggressive manner’.

So the definition of "Bazball" isn't unique to England but we all knew that.

 
Last edited:
Once again an NZ cricketer starting the trends in world cricket, Baz McCullum the godfather of aggressive test cricket batting.


GettyImages-1405952840-e1657284602608.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Loving the trend he's started of England sucking ass

Not sure how this statement works.

Pre-McCullum: 2 wins in 20 tests
Post-McCullum: unbeaten in 5 series, wins at home against NZ, SA, a one-off catch-up test against India, 3-0 win away in Pakistan, drawn series away in NZ, drawn Ashes series from 2-0 down.
 
Not sure how this statement works.

Pre-McCullum: 2 wins in 20 tests
Post-McCullum: unbeaten in 5 series, wins at home against NZ, SA, a one-off catch-up test against India, 3-0 win away in Pakistan, drawn series away in NZ, drawn Ashes series from 2-0 down.
Is a shitpost, not a serious comment (although no more of a shitpost than the English media's collective cult mantras making Baz out to be a demigod of cricketing righteousness, when he's taken a team made up of awful and aging cricketers to a few rungs above mediocrity).
 
Is a shitpost, not a serious comment (although no more of a shitpost than the English media's collective cult mantras making Baz out to be a demigod of cricketing righteousness, when he's taken a team made up of awful and aging cricketers to a few rungs above mediocrity).

If they’re as awful as what you’ve made out, what he’s done is nothing short of remarkable, to be fair
 


“I’m 2-0 against Bazball so I am happy,” Lyon said. “It’s a load of s**t, if you ask me. It’s a brand of cricket that the English want to keep going with. Now it’s in the dictionary which is pretty extraordinary.”

Front Bar host Mick Molloy responded: “It’s in the dictionary between the Hindenberg and the Titanic”.
 


“I’m 2-0 against Bazball so I am happy,” Lyon said. “It’s a load of s**t, if you ask me. It’s a brand of cricket that the English want to keep going with. Now it’s in the dictionary which is pretty extraordinary.”

Front Bar host Mick Molloy responded: “It’s in the dictionary between the Hindenberg and the Titanic”.

Funny way to define a tactic that hasn’t actually lost a series yet.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)



“I’m 2-0 against Bazball so I am happy,” Lyon said. “It’s a load of s**t, if you ask me. It’s a brand of cricket that the English want to keep going with. Now it’s in the dictionary which is pretty extraordinary.”

Front Bar host Mick Molloy responded: “It’s in the dictionary between the Hindenberg and the Titanic”.
Classic.
Bazball is crap. Rough translation is playing reckless cricket shots with zero consequences afterwards.
 
Is a shitpost, not a serious comment (although no more of a shitpost than the English media's collective cult mantras making Baz out to be a demigod of cricketing righteousness, when he's taken a team made up of awful and aging cricketers to a few rungs above mediocrity).

I think this undersells things a bit and also highlights Australia’s (not yours personally) colossal ability to not know a thing about overseas sport until we become directly involved it.

On the surface, English cricket under McCullum has:

  • Won in Pakistan handsomely. Not that it matters too much, you don’t get a bigger trophy for ‘winning more’ but they did it easier than Australia. They won 3-0 and did it scoring at absurd rates.
  • Drew in NZ and one of the losses was by a single run. It was one of the greatest test matches ever played and again came under the mantra of how they’re trying to play their cricket. The other test they won by nearly 300 runs.
  • beat SA 2-1 with two absolute maulings after some whispers when they went 1-0 down. The tactic stood up against a brilliant attack
  • chased some massive scores from some basically dead and buried positions, ultimately in a canter, to win 3-0 against NZ
  • chased nearly 400, 3-down, at 5 an over against India from 3-100.
  • came back from 2-0 down against Australia to nearly steal the series. Yes Australia lost Lyon, that’s not lost on me. England could have easily lost the series. So too could have Australia.

So that little narrative on its own is fairly interesting given that it’s been written by a group of players who’s only real ‘stars’ are either well, well past their prime or nowhere near it (Pope, Brook), aside from Stokes and Root. It’s a GOOD run. Not world beating, world dominant, but GOOD, and F**KING entertaining - constant fight backs, quick scoring, games turned in their head etc.

But when you couple that with what was going on for two years before that?

Man it’s bordering on insane.

Australian fans will talk endlessly about how they cherish the wins in the 90s and 2000s all the more because of how s**t things were in the 80s.

This is a microcosm of that.

2 wins in 20-odd tests, series defeats to the West Indies etc.

THATS why it gets jerked over
 
Classic.
Bazball is crap. Rough translation is playing reckless cricket shots with zero consequences afterwards.

It’s not though, is it. Rough translation is playing the way Australia’s greatest ever all rounder did his entire career.

It’s taken a team from winning 2 tests in 21, to winning 13 of their last 18, and to being undefeated in their last 5 series plus two wins in one-off tests.
 
It’s not though, is it. Rough translation is playing the way Australia’s greatest ever all rounder did his entire career.

It’s taken a team from winning 2 tests in 21, to winning 13 of their last 18, and to being undefeated in their last 5 series plus two wins in one-off tests.
sam winchester yawn GIF
 


What does that even mean?

You’ve literally just chucked some pixels at a screen that don’t address anything at all.

A team goes like s**t, hires a new coach who does a complete 180 degree turn on their tactics, their results suddenly do a complete 180 degree improvement, and your response is ‘this doesn’t work.’

How does that make any sense, at all?

It’s like addressing a golfer who makes two cuts in an entire year on the PGA Tour switching to a broomstick putter who suddenly wins a handful of titles and makes three top 10s at the majors and saying ‘well that clearly didn’t f**ken work did it’ purely because you’re a traditionalist who doesn’t like long handled golf sticks
 
What does that even mean?

You’ve literally just chucked some pixels at a screen that don’t address anything at all.

A team goes like s**t, hires a new coach who does a complete 180 degree turn on their tactics, their results suddenly do a complete 180 degree improvement, and your response is ‘this doesn’t work.’

How does that make any sense, at all?

It’s like addressing a golfer who makes two cuts in an entire year on the PGA Tour switching to a broomstick putter who suddenly wins a handful of titles and makes three top 10s at the majors and saying ‘well that clearly didn’t f**ken work did it’ purely because you’re a traditionalist who doesn’t like long handled golf sticks
You're argumentative and not worth the effort clearly taking this way too seriously.
Bazball was unaccountable trash.

Respond and ignore gets hit.
 
You're argumentative and not worth the effort clearly taking this way too seriously.
Bazball was unaccountable trash.

Respond and ignore gets hit.

It’s a forum. The entire point of it is that people share what are often contrasting views and they debate the relative merits of those views. Explaining why they hold them isn’t ’being argumentative’ it’s stating a position and explaining why you have it. Just because you haven’t bothered to do it and I have doesn’t change that.

You haven’t made an argument yet. You’ve just said you don’t like it, basically. I’m yet to read a single thing that actually makes any assessment of it. Which makes sense as any actual assessment comes to the conclusion that, so far, it works.

And I’m not sure how I’ll cope if you ignore me.
 
Loving the trend he's started of England sucking ass
To get England test cricket out of its funk McCullum institutes a radical game plan that only beats the crud of test cricket. The gold standard left their shores avoiding defeat.

Funnily enough the World Cup had them becoming 90s England. Abject.
 
To get England test cricket out of its funk McCullum institutes a radical game plan that only beats the crud of test cricket. The gold standard left their shores avoiding defeat.

Funnily enough the World Cup had them becoming 90s England. Abject.

England won two tests against Australia to level the Ashes series and only rain prevented from from winning another test and the series.

It was hardly a failure for McCullum's test cricket coaching and approach, under a lesser coach like Silverwood they probably lose that series.

He has nothing to do with their ODI team, it is an Australian Matthew Mott who is coaching them and was responsible for their WC disaster.
 
“The crud of test cricket.”

So far England have olayed
  • the current world test champions and drawn 2-2 with them
  • one test against the runners up in the WTC. They beat them by 7 wickets.
  • the then-World Test Champions away, they drew 1-1, the loss being by 1 run, and they beat that same team 3-0 in England
  • the side who would finish 3rd in the then-current WTC cycle, winning 2-1
  • Pakistan away, winning 3-0

I’m just trying to work out who he should have been playing. Are there teams ranked higher that they should have been playing and beating? ‘The crud’ of test cricket that they’ve been meeting has essentially been the best 4 teams in the game and they have so far not lost to any of them, the worst results being a drawn series at home to the current champions and a drawn series away to the previous champions

What are they supposed to be doing
 
England won two tests against Australia to level the Ashes series and only rain prevented from from winning another test and the series.

It was hardly a failure for McCullum's test cricket coaching and approach, under a lesser coach like Silverwood they probably lose that series.

He has nothing to do with their ODI team, it is an Australian Matthew Mott who is coaching them and was responsible for their WC disaster.
And the two tests they lost. Thoroughly outplayed at Lord's only got close due to Stokes heroics and lost at Edgbaston thanks to Bazball stupidity of declaring very early in the game while Root was batting and passed 100.

Lyon plays the last 3 tests and they don't level it.

I cannot wait to see them try and bazball in India.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top