Bairstow is driven by having score to settle – real or imagined
Opener’s century to put England back on track was fuelled by criticism reframed as disrespect
SPORTS WRITER OF THE YEAR
Lacking a useful grievance, some people conjure one. Anger becomes their fuel. Nobody in English cricket can use a sense of persecution better than Jonny Bairstow. England’s leading scorer on a do-or-die day at Edgbaston is a complex challenge for any captain, but a mighty asset to a team when he has a score to settle, a point to prove, real or imagined. As motivation for this campaignsaving 31-run win over India, Bairstow persuaded himself that there was a kind of conspiracy against this England side: a dark army of influential voices who were “waiting for them to fail”.
What a difference a hundred makes. How sweetly it lifts the cloud of introspection. With Bairstow leading the way, England flipped from being the hosts-who-are-toast to a team who remembered who they are – just in time. In front of a Birmingham crowd dominated by India supporters, England batted with a blend of freedom and authority to set Virat Kohli’s men an exacting target of 338.
The rescue act needs to continue against New Zealand in Durham, but for a few days England are spared further talk of a hubristic addiction to Plan A sending them out at the group stage.
If you like expressive cricket, admire the talent of these players and lack the appetite for an early why-oh-why inquest, you will be relieved to see England’s bold manifesto sellotaped back together. There is a bit more fun to be had with this side.
They were saved in Birmingham by the return of Jason Roy, who could bat but not run freely (or field), Bairstow and Ben Stokes, who carried his defiance over from the Australia defeat. With the ball, the important work was done by Chris Woakes, who removed both openers, and Liam Plunkett, whose productivity in the middle overs cost Kohli, Rishabh Pant and Hardik Pandya their wickets.
After the fear and dread of the past few days, it was a blessed
relief to see India enter the final over needing 44 to win, and their supporters filing out of the ground bemused by how late their heroes left it to start swinging the wood.
When they did, Bairstow left his mark on India’s innings with a cartoon-hero dive after sprinting from deep square leg to prevent a Pandya boundary. As he rose from the tangle he had made of himself to admire his work, you could see in Bairstow’s smiling eyes his love of battle.
In a record one-day international first-wicket partnership against India, Bairstow struck 10 fours and six sixes in an innings of 111 that was ended by a catch by Pant off Mohammed Shami at deep point. The Roy-bairstow partnership was a restatement of what England are meant to be about: assertive batting, a big total and then energetic bowling and fielding to smother the run-chase.
Everyone can derive some satisfaction, from these England players to their critics, who were within their rights to find fault with three defeats from seven and certainly pricked the pride of this team.
Like Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales, some top sportspeople “live by the feud”. They reframe criticism as disrespect, allow the darts of punditry to pierce their skin to drive them on, construct an image of a hostile audience who want them to fail. Some even allow it to shade into paranoia, if it helps their cause. They brood and stew and see themselves as under siege.
We might think it silly, but few of us have whole countries sitting in judgment on our work, during a home World Cup, when we are trying our guts out, irrespective of our errors.
In today’s “free-hit” culture, players already upset by a downturn in form or fortune are asked to accept the judgments of people observing from a safe distance. And when those appraisals come from former players or legends, there is a particular burn of resentment, as if some code has been broken.
The best pundits, of course, know their dressing-room days are over and cut the chord, applying their critical faculties freely and not minding who they upset.
To recap, Bairstow had professed himself disappointed in the build-up by some truth-telling from Michael Vaughan in particular. “People were waiting for us to fail,” Bairstow said. “They are not willing us on to win, in many ways, they are waiting for you to get that loss, so they can jump on your throat. It’s a typical English thing to do, in every sport.”
None of that added up. Few England teams in recent memory have generated as much goodwill as this one-day side, who are seen as innovators, entertainers. But this is Bairstow’s proven method of spurring himself into a response.
In Sri Lanka last year, he missed the first two Tests after injuring himself playing football, lost his place to Ben Foakes, but then returned to make a century, claiming he had been “castigated” for his football mishap.
Pundits poked fun at the idea they had become disloyal. As India’s run-chase was petering out, Graeme Swann said on BBC radio: “It’s even got us wanting them [England] to win – and we don’t like England, do we?”
If they really want England to win this World Cup, giving Jonny Bairstow grudges to feed off is one way for commentators to help.