Test is best
FIVE test matches, all of which required a fifth day. Surely, that says it all.
In England, at least, test cricket really matters. Often it is said that young people do not get test matches, but it is certainly not the case for all. My 9 year old son has attended 2 cricket holiday camps this summer over 8 days, and during a lot of that time, the children were playing ‘test-match’ in the nets – as you would imagine, this is a mock test match with teams playing multiple innings over multiple days. The people that run the game would do well to speak to some of the children that go to these events and check up on what the 9 year old cricketers want.
Jonathan Agnew recently said that any cricket administrator who promotes 4 day test matches going forward should not be in the job. That is an over-simplification and does not recognise the problems the 5-day game faces in some parts of the world. We do need multiple formats and should view the variety as a strength of the game – indeed, the aforementioned 9 year-old loves The Hundred as well, and test matches are not for everybody. But we cannot ignore the fact that we have had 5 test matches that all have gone to 5 days. We can not even blame the weather – except perhaps at The Oval where maybe 4 days would have been enough. The games needed 5 days for someone to win – and that was not enough at Old Trafford. Test cricket is the ultimate test and needs to be treated as such.
Was the test match format respected?
By the players? Absolutely. By the administrators? No. Not in the slightest. 5 test matches in 45 days is too much.
It has, of course, happened before – I have just been reading Gideon Haigh’s book about the 2010/11 Ashes, which similarly bemoans the schedule for that series. In that series, the losing Australians fell into disarray with injuries in the later games, but even England lost a key player in Stuart Broad due to injury.
In this series, it can not be said that the quality at The Oval was consistently high. It had its moments, but also, it saw some of the worst England test match bowling I have ever seen. The reason for this is that several of the best players were injured, and the backup players for England had not played enough cricket. Josh Tonge and Jamie Overton improved as the last game went on – though the England obsession with Overton is quite peculiar. Several players on both teams looked exausted – although it seems that Mohammed Siraj could have played 12 test matches on the bounce.
Of course, injuries are part of the game, and in all probability, the injuries of Rishabh Pant (two injuries for Pant) and Chris Woakes would still have happened if the test matches had been 10 days appart, as was traditional in England. But would it not be better if Ben Stokes, Brydon Carse, Jofra Archer, and Jasprit Bumrah were able to play all the games and have recovery time in-between. We would not need rest and rotation – just rest between games would be a start.
What about Injury Substitutes?
It is a no from me.
Test matches have not needed substitutes before – people used to just accept the rules rather than want to change them all the time. I was as frustrated as anyone when Sir James Anderson limped out of the 2019 Ashes on the first morning, but it is an unusual scenario and usually things even themselves out for both teams – that was spectacularly the case here with Pant and Woakes.
I would not have substitutes. But I would take seriously the duty of care that was neglected for Pant and Woakes, as it was for Paul Terry and Malcolm Marshall in 1984. Its great drama, but if it risks further injury, it is the wrong call to play, whatever the stakes. Team doctors, not players, should own decisions about whether players are fit to bat, and this should be written into player’s contracts. Woakes and Pant should not have been allowed to bat, but that does not mean we roll out subs. Instead, it means that teams might have to make do with 10 occasionally, and Allan Lamb would have had to get his third hundred in 1985 slightly quicker.
I suspect substitutes are on the way into cricket despite my misgivings – and the rules will be manipulated by teams creating more acrimony on the field. It is not a good look.
The toss of the coin
England won the toss 5 times, but only made the right decsion twice.
England won every toss, but Ben Stokes and Ollie Pope made some questionable decisions and some good decisions. At Headingley, Stokes chose to bat, and given India were 471 all out it sounds like a reasonable call, but this came after having been 430/3, and they needed another record chase in the final innings. It was the wrong call, but England got away with it.
Not so at Edgebaston. Stokes again chose to bat first, giving an India without Jasprit Bumrah the chance to bat first. It was the wrong decision and was a slightly arrogant decision – to continually claim to be able to chase any score goes wrong when the target gets past 500. At one point, India’s first innings evoked memories of Australia’s 601/7 at Headingley in 1989 after David Gower chose to bowl, having won the toss. In the end, India fell away a little bit, but the eventual 587 was plenty enough – nobody is going to win many games after conceding that sort of score.
Both at Lords and Old Trafford, it was a little trikier to make the right call. For me, Lords was a bowl first scenario, but England batted. That they made it to 387 was down to a gritty Joe Root performance. Lords generally flattens out, and India almost chased down the target they were set. At the same time, the 4th innings score was the lowest in the game. So perhaps Stokes was proven right.
Old Trafford is difficult. All the stats say bat first every time, but since the square has been turned around, it has been incredibly flat, particularly this year, so I can understand England’s reasoning. My view is that if you bowl first, you need to bowl the team out for 300 and take 7 wickets on day 1, and England did not quite make this, but bowling first was the only scenrio where Engand could bat once – the follow on not being an option with this tired bowling attack. I think it would have been a draw whatever England did given the way it turned out.
Ollie Pope was thrown into the last game at The Oval with a second string bowling attack. England were very unlucky to lose Chris Woakes on day 1 to injury in the field, but he surely only played due to the scarsity of other experienced options. Given that the top 5 had all tasted success in the summer, whereas the England bowling attack included Gus Atkinson and Jamie Overton, who had not played earlier games in the series, and did not include Stokes who was England’s bowler of the summer. It was a no-brainer to bat first – and the West Indies in the 80s and the Australians in the 90s would have certainly done this when 2-1 up, with the aim to score 600 and bat the opposition out of the game. As it turned out, the decision meant that India were never out of it, which was enough for Siraj
Can BazBall work over a 5 match series?
England are determined to play in a manner that is full of intensity – they will throw absolutely everything into beating the opposition. This has so far been a problem when it comes to 5 match series. It is like the old fashioned light bulb that shines more and more brightly – until it goes out. At the Oval, the bulb went out.
- Against Australia in 2023, they were undercooked – that was where the golf criticism started. England were not up to full intensity until the third test match, by which point they were 2-0 down.
- Against India away, they won the first game of the series before tailing off badly and losing the series
- Here, they maintained that intensity through Lords, but by half-way through the Old Trafford game, the effort was showing.
The question for England is not whether they can go toe to toe with the Aussies down under. The question is whether they can maintain it over the series? I think the 2023 Ashes was probably an outlier – it has been a regular issue that they have started series well and declined. In a 3 match series, this is ok – it is almost beneficial. In 5 test matches, its a problem.
The greatest teams I have seen are the great West Indies and Australia teams. Those teams definitely possessed great cricketers, but even those great players knew that at times, they needed to let the game happen because the opportunity for dominance will come. Think of Shane Warne bowling negatively to Kevin Pietersen in Adelaide – and remember who came out on top.
I think England need to turn down the intensity at times because they can not maintain it at 105% for 5 test matches. Perhaps that equates to Stokes bowling less overs – because if Stokes had played at The Oval, England would have won the series.
Was the series as good as 2005?
No. Emphatically, no.
Of course, it is easy to accuse people like me of wearing the rose tinted glasses, that people of my vintage will never accept that the old days were not the best. But in 2005, people who had been inspired by 1981 were prepared to turn round and say that 2005 was better. I am not hearing anyone say that here.
Let’s talk about excitement first. I do not think we can say the series was truly exciting until we got to Lords. Yes, it had a few exciting overs (Bumrah to Harry Brook sticks out), but neither Headingley or Edgbaston were remotely close finishes. Old Trafford was about as dull as it gets – its time Lancashire got honest about the pitches. Lords and The Oval were peak excitement – and we had the rare scenario where both teams had the same first innings score. But Day 1 and 2 at Lords were cagey, close games – great cricket, but not of the 2005 vibe.
Even if no game was won by just 2 runs, you could make a case for saying that the series was as exciting as 2005. But when it comes to quality, I am simply not having it. It says it all that a memorable moment in Leeds came from a Bumrah no ball. Does Brook at The Oval equal Kevin Pietersen? Does Gill at Edgebaston equal Ricky Ponting at Old Trafford? Does Stokes at Old Trafford equal Andrew Flintoff at Edgbaston? Does Ducket at Headingley equal Michael Vaughan at Old Trafford? Who equals Andrew Strauss at Old Trafford and The Oval? Does Siraj equal Shane Warne?
Of course, quite a few catches were dropped in 2005 – mostly by Pietersen. Quite a few catches went down in 2025. But I do not remember any point at Old Trafford where the cricket was as abysmal as England were at The Oval in 2025.
No. 2005 is safe. 2025 v India was an important series, full of excitment. But it they won’t look back on it in 2045 in the way we are looking back at 2005.
Cricketed 