Bump in the road was always likely
And tactics weren’t the problem here anyway
After the phoniest of phoney wars, it wasn’t even Bazball wot lost it. Whisper it, but the reason england lost to South Africa by an innings was because they were outplayed by a better side with a more potent attack.
the pre-match prattle had become so convoluted that no one knew any more who was accusing whom of what. South Africa appeared put out that england were talking about Bazball, while england — who weren’t talking about it at all — were peeved that the phrase had been dreamed up in the first place.
In the end, it didn’t matter. If anything, at least according to Ben Stokes, they had departed from the game plan that helped them to successful chases of 277, 299 and 296 against New Zealand and a nationalrecord 378 against India.
there was some truth in that. And yet, as england lost 20 wickets in 82.4 overs — less than a day’s play — it was clear that South Africa had simply not allowed them to bat with freedom. Kagiso rabada was sleek and world class, Anrich Nortje a fast-bowling ball of fury, Marco Jansen tall, left-arm and awkward. even Lungi Ngidi — the ringo Starr of the four quicks — removed Joe root cheaply in the second innings.
there was no let-up. ‘relentless,’ said Stokes, before halfretracting the adjective in search of a balance between giving opponents their due and not talking them up ahead of Old trafford and the Oval. And he was spot on.
Where the New Zealand and India attacks each had a weak link — off- spinner Michael Bracewell and medium-pacer Shardul thakur respectively — South Africa trampled on england from the moment Alex Lees drove loosely at rabada in the game’s second over.
even their spinner, Keshav Maharaj, chipped in with the wickets of Zak Crawley and Ollie Pope to kickstart england’s second-innings surrender.
But Bazball? Not really. Lees’ aberration was as headstrong as england got in their first-innings 165, while Crawley’s risky sweep at Maharaj was the most premeditated shot from a supposedly recognised batsman in their second-innings 149 all out.
Stuart Broad may have had a slog during his 29-ball 35 on the third afternoon, but the lower order have always been a law unto themselves. It’s the top seven who make the runs — or not — and, in this game,
england’s top seven couldn’t live with South Africa.
the thrust of Stokes’s postmatch message reflected as much. ‘ We’ve got a certain way we want to play,’ he said.
‘We know we can be an incredibly hard team to play against if we execute that. But we can’t be great every day.’
there has been a slight sense in some quarters that england have had this coming. test cricket can’t be messed with, they
say. runs should be earned the hard way, not cheapened with slogans.
But that would to be overlook what predated their four wins in June and July: one victory in 17, leading to the resignation of Joe root and a general sense of despair. even playing more
forthright cricket, england were always going to come a cropper at some stage.
their bowling, too, was on a par with what has gone before. Much has been made of the full house of 80 wickets claimed against New Zealand and India — less of the fact that the average total conceded by england in those eight innings was 321.
In this game, South Africa were bowled out for 326, with england employing precisely the same short-ball tactics to the lower order that had worked, more often than not, in the previous four tests.
Whether they should have adapted, and given Jimmy Anderson the second new ball on a cloudy third morning, is another matter.
But the main difference here was that South Africa had pace, and england — still without the injured Mark Wood and Jofra Archer — did not.
Now, after the first bump in the road, Stokes and Brendon McCullum have to convince their team that they can take down South Africa in Manchester.
for students of psychology as much as lovers of cricket, the second test cannot come quickly enough.