Booney wrote:whufc wrote:There is a slight bit of irony in the critism of bazball from the first test.
For the most part it had England front of the test for nearly all of the game. Obvious come back is that 'but they didn't win it'. True.
Irony being it was the prototype bazball innings that won Australia the game. Further to that it wasn't necessarily by design from the Aussies and more because of Khawaja injured forcing their hand.
Not saying England couldn't have been more intelligent with the bat in the hand but it also wasn't the complete disaster many are making it out to be.
I thought Stokes captaincy and the bowling plans for that hour when Head got on top was more of a disaster than their batting.
Ultimately that test was decided by the one batsman that got away......just happened to be a brilliant Head innings for the Australian win.
Went from 5/160 to all out 172 in the first innings losing 5/12 and in the second innings went from 1/65 to 6/88 losing 5/23 in the second innings.
If you don't think losing 10/35 with some of the most insane batting cost them the test you were watching the wrong game.
Not saying it didnt hurt them BUT.......................Australia batting in a traditional manner hurt them just as much as the first innings deficit suggests.
If it wasn't for a bazball style innings who knows what result we would have got. Even Labuschagne went half bazz ball thanks to much help from the english bowling lengths and field settings.
I would buy the argument if Australia went on to hit 300 in the first innings batting in a traditional manner or it was Khawaja with a patient 100 that won Australia the game but it wasnt.
The guys with the highest strike rates this test performed the best..........
Head 123 @ 148.19
Brook 52 @ 85.25
Labuschagne 51 @ 104.08
Pope 46 @ 79.31
Atkinson 37 @ 115.62
Smith 33 @ 150
Carey 26 @ 100.00
Infact Australias three highest scorest all went at over 100 strike rate. Maybe you could argue England didnt go bazball enough.