There has been lot of hoopla on the style of cricket England has been playing since Brendon McCullum took over as coach in 2022, England have quite a remarkable success but still they have not been able to make up a team for all the kind of pitches, cracks have started to surface in last year or so, questions have been raised on the kind of the selections
Hype around Bashir reminds of failed experiment with Ian Salisbury
England
have been the third most successful team in terms of win-loss ratio since
Brendon McCullum took over, behind only Australia and South Africa. However,
they lead the way in total Test wins during this period, with 24 victories in
38 matches. Under Stokes and McCullum, Test cricket has enjoyed a resurgence in
popularity, particularly in England, which remains the No.1 market for the
format, much like India is for limited-overs and franchise cricket.
Their
high-octane, fearless style has indeed thrilled fans. England’s players have
managed to dominate opponents mentally, often forcing them to alter
strategies, as seen when Shubhman Gill chose to bat on to a massive 607-run
lead, seemingly influenced by the unpredictability of England’s
counterattacking approach.
The
Numbers vs. the Reality: Compare
England’s 24 wins between May 2022 and July 2025 to the previous three-year
period, and the impact becomes clear—they managed only 13 wins out of 38 Tests
between 2019 and 2022, losing 16.
Another
striking statistic is the number of draws: Just one between 2022
and 2025, compared to nine in the previous cycle. This reflects what Stokes and
McCullum have repeatedly emphasized—they see themselves as ambassadors of
entertaining, result-oriented Test cricket, but at what cost?
 |
| Zak Crawley- Probably the luckiest Test Cricketer ever to play 50 Tests |
During
this same period, England's most serious examination came in India. They were
expected to show that their style could succeed across conditions. Instead,
they lost the five-match series 4–1, thoroughly outplayed by Indian spinners on
turning pitches. Rather than adapting, England persisted with aggressive
shot-making and were consistently undone. A similar pattern repeated against
Pakistan: dominant on flat tracks, exposed when turners were introduced.
Just
last week, India handed England a humiliating 336-run defeat at Edgbaston, a
ground where India had never previously won a Test. England's rigidity was on
full display—not just in their approach at the crease, but in selection
decisions that seem increasingly rooted in ideology over merit.
But
while the entertainment factor is undeniable, the cracks in this approach have
begun to surface—both in terms of adaptability on difficult pitches and in the
team’s increasingly insular selection policy.
Team
Selection: Style Over Substance: Nowhere is this more evident than in the
continued backing of Zak Crawley. Despite 56 Tests and a subpar average,
Crawley remains a fixture at the top of the order—largely because his attacking
style fits the “Bazball” blueprint. Meanwhile, Tom Haines, with over 5,500
first-class runs at an average nearing 40, continues to be overlooked.
 |
| Tom Haines - Still waiting in the wing |
The
selection of Shoaib Bashir—touted as a top prospect by the coach and
captain—raises serious questions. He has taken 66 wickets in 18 Tests, but with
a high average of 39.81. More concerning is his lack of key skills: the ability
to consistently turn the ball, apply pressure on batsmen, and maintain control
over long spells. At times, he simply hasn't looked threatening. His domestic
record is even more troubling, with a first-class average of nearly 50—hardly
the numbers of a frontline spinner. Meanwhile, England already have Jack Leach,
a proven wicket-taker with 142 wickets in 39 Tests at an average of 34.07,
offering far more reliability and control.
The
selection of players like Jacob Bethell, Brydon Carse, Liam Livingstone, and
Josh Hull follows a similar logic—chosen for their “X-factors” such as pace,
release points, and aggression, rather than proven consistency.
Substance
ignored over style
It
is ironic that Tom Haines continues to wait for an opportunity simply because
Zak Crawley’s style of play is seen as a better fit for the current setup. Even
more frustrating is the situation with Ollie Pope, who, despite averaging just
35.45 in 58 Tests, remains a mainstay—while discussions around his replacement
centre on Jacob Bethell, a player with a modest first-class average of 28.61.
Meanwhile,
Sam Hain, with 7,868 runs at an average of 40.97 in 134 matches, remains
overlooked. He offers the technical solidity and temperament ideally suited for
the No.3 position. Ironically, his strike rate of 48 is not far behind
Bethell’s 53, but because Hain doesn’t fit the “attractive” or aggressive mold,
he is ignored—despite being exactly what this batting lineup lacks.
 |
| Sam Hain - The Style of Player England needs to give stability |
Bowling
Bias: Pace Over Control : England’s pace selections have also raised eyebrows.
Despite a legacy built by James Anderson and Stuart Broad—both swing bowlers
who thrived on control and discipline—the current preference is for raw pace.
Bowlers like Josh Tongue, Brydon Carse, and Gus Atkinson have leapfrogged
consistent county performers like Sam Cook, who was granted just a single Test
appearance despite his first-class average under 20.
 |
| Sam Cook - Discarded just after one Test |
A Systemic Blind Spot: What’s increasingly evident is that McCullum and Stokes prefer a very specific kind of cricketer—aggressive, expressive, and high-risk. But Test cricket is about balance, adaptability, and resilience. England, at present, appear capable of playing only one style. On flat decks, they dominate. On surfaces offering spin or seam movement, they struggle. Unless this England side becomes more tactically flexible—both in style and in selection—it’s hard to see how they will consistently compete against the likes of India or Australia, who field more balanced, condition-adaptable squads.
Comments
Post a Comment