Burning down the Baz-house is easy, but what comes after that for England? | Barney Ronay

Overprepared. Overconfident. Overblown. Over there. And now just over. We know how this goes from here, don’t we? We know this cycle.

The days since England’s defeat in Brisbane have boiled down to a real-time competition to become the hate-click boss, to describe in the most sensual, eviscerating detail the depth of England’s badness, not just at cricket, but at the molecular, existential level.

Right now everything is turned up to 11. Bring on the flamethrowers. Scour this filth from the earth. It’s time to burn this Baz-house down. So we have pitch maps of shame, fifth-stump drive montages, deconstructions of the basic energy at the Gabba, when even the players’ faces seemed to collapse, from handsome, alpha dogs romping out in mid-afternoon, to weak-chinned lost souls under the evening lights, eyes hollow, hair straggly, like acid casualties at Woodstock.

We have a race to capture the exact styling of the end times. What will its epitaph be? The current favourite is Brendon McCullum’s post-match TV interview, an experience that felt, in the moment, like having burning hot kebab skewers made entirely from vibes and golf driven into both eyeballs.

Even as McCullum said the thing – “If anything we overprepared” – you could almost hear the clank of belts being loosed, steak knives sharpened. There it is. His we need to look at the data. His peace in our time. His we’re ALL RIGHT, fist raised to the party conference hall.

So we can do the horror. But there is a problem here too, and a familiar one. There is rarely any suggestion of what to do next, or what parts to keep, just the urge to purge, to annihilate the dominant thesis. Reject. Reanimate the old ways. Concrete over the flaws of the present with the flaws of the past.

But what if there was another way? What if it was possible not just to say how England are bad, but why and how to improve it? Who would be the best person to tell us this, outside exasperated ex-pros and scalpel-penned hacks?

If we accept that the greatest flaw of the Baz-verse is its philistinism, the rejection of knowledge and theory, then the answer is probably someone with an actual interest in these things, meatheads v pointy heads.

Brendon McCullum (left), the England head coach, made himself a target for criticism by saying his side ‘overprepared’ before the Test in Brisbane. Photograph: Robbie Stephenson/PA

Rob Ferley is a former Kent and Nottinghamshire spin bowler turned professional coach and one of the most innovative thinkers in English cricket. Ferley is outside Bazball. He also played with, respects and is fascinated by its grand wizard Rob Key. With Dr James Wallace, lecturer in Sports Science at the University of Brighton, he has formed Square One Cricket, a kind of sports science brains trust based at its Falmer campus facility.

As an antidote to the burn-it-down dynamic, this page asked Ferley to come up with a state-of-Bazball briefing paper, evidence-based and drawing on current theory. So what do people who have spent a professional life trying to understand coaching culture think about a system that rejects it?

An important message. This is not an apologia for the regime, whose only real achievement in Australia so far is to have found a more extreme way of being bad. Factor in depth of resources, extended prep, the freedom to create an entire cult-like way of being. Fold in the fact England have won 13 of their past 39 Tests and one-day internationals, a win ratio worse than Ange Postecoglou at Spurs, worse than their predecessors, the Silverwood-Mott axis, who won 17 of their last 39 matches, and England aren’t just bad right now, they’re mega-bad.

Lose again in Adelaide and resigning on the spot is the only real Bazball move left. Run towards the carpet slippers. Be where your sofa is. So we can do the horror, because the horror is real. But it is also reductive. What are the good parts here?

So we enter Part 1: What Bazball gets right. Even in the middle of failure, there has been one major gain. As Ferley puts it: “Bazball revolutionised how England feel. It’s probably the best time ever to be an England cricketer. So that is genuinely remarkable, isn’t it?”

How did they do this? “Players feel trusted, empowered and unburdened by fear of failure.” Yes this sounds funny now, having collapsed like an overdunked biscuit at first contact in Australia. But it is also a major achievement in English cricket, which has so often been hampered by the absence of these qualities.

Key to these early gains was Reinvestment theory and constraints-led approach. “Reinvestment theory suggests that overthinking technical details inhibits performance. Bazball’s messaging – ‘trust your game’, ‘play with freedom’, ‘express yourself’ – limits this excessive cognitive load.” Ben Duckett, for example. Did you really think he would average 40 as a Test opener? Duckett has been reinvested. He was ready for this.

We also have Positive self-fulfilling prophecies, whereby: “Stokes and McCullum use belief as a weapon … The message is consistent: we believe in you. This creates belonging, identity and confidence.” But we get into trickier ground under A values-oriented culture with its “clear emphasis on the psychological and emotional domains. These are enjoyment, self-expression, connection, mental freedom, reduced fear”. This may be falling apart right now, but it worked while it worked. “In short, Bazball is 85% built on solid evidence and powerful principles.” But don’t worry. “There are clear gaps,” where “Bazball is incomplete or unsupported by evidence”.

The first is High support but low challenge. “The current environment is extremely supportive – but it seems to lack challenge. High support without high challenge creates comfort safety and enjoyment, but not necessarily excellence … the current model feels too comfortable.”

One example is the apparent lack of detail as opposed to simply energy. Zak Crawley has talked about picking up a mood on how to bat, never actually being told to get a quick 30, just sensing it was the right thing from the nature of McCullum’s silence when he walks back into the dressing room. How’s that going to break down under actual pressure?

Next is Lack of tactical adaptability and perceptual-decision training. “A constraints-led approach shouldn’t mean absence of tactical development. England speak a language of freedom, but look unable to adapt when conditions change … they cannot change their approach under pressure.”

One example this week was the Marcus Trescothick press conference, which featured statements like: “I don’t think you should be looking too much at what the guys are trying to do” (why not?) and “no discussions took place about driving on the up”. What to make of this after a Test where up to 15 wickets fell to balls that could have been left? Why have there been no discussions? Or just one discussion? This is literally the job.

Next problem, One-size-fits-all autonomy. “Autonomy is preached, but the culture has converged on a single way of playing. The team ethos has become: ‘This is how we play.’ That risks suppressing penalising players who think or operate differently.”

Think here of Ollie Pope, who would surely look happier under a different regime. As it is nobody knows what Pope’s real depths are, his actual core skills. Although it seems likely these might be resilience and slow craft. This is before we even get to Harry Brook, who is in danger of swallowing his own talent, always going for the sugar rush, shooting for the sun.

Ollie Pope gives the impression that his skillset would be more suited to a different England regime. Photograph: MB Media/Getty Images

Speaking of which Over-reliance on a ‘entertainment-first’ narrative. “Entertainment matters, but high performance requires consequence. England sound like a team enjoying themselves more than a team striving to be the best.” There is a surprising truth here. Bazball is dull. These are one-note iconoclasts, predicable mavericks, like a manufactured punk band snarling to order an American talkshow.

Most important of all perhaps is Psychological comfort without performance accountability. “High performance requires consequence. If players are too safe it can lead to: complacency, reduced hunger, acceptance of mediocrity, overconfidence that becomes blind spots.”

Stokes expressed surprise in Brisbane that England are bad at coping with pressure. Maybe this is because they don’t allow themselves to foster it, but look instead like a team that has been told it’s special and actually believes it.

As for Unclear values, well now we’re talking. “Bazball has a vibe, an energy, a style – but what are the actual values? Entertainment? Positivity? Bravery? Winning? These are cultural traits, not performance values. Great teams have clear, explicit values that guide behaviour, decision-making and accountability.”

This is the other thing England have achieved in Australia. They haven’t just played badly. They have made themselves unusually unlikeable. Other England teams have lost like drowning men, lost like it hurt. This England are still trying to be cool in defeat, to talk about going for beers in the sting of 2-0 down.

So we get on to Selection bias and favouritism risks. “High belief encourages confidence – but it can also create blindspots. There is a risk of loyalty overriding objectivity, leading to a small pool of players being backed regardless of evidence.” Selection is confusing. The message is: we will not select on runs and wickets. We will pick you on attitude. So go out there and play in a style that keeps you in the team. Haseeb Hameed, for example, has clearly been making the wrong kind of runs.

Finally we have Schedule narrative. “The constant commentary around the schedule may reinforce a self-fulfilling belief that England are uniquely fatigued. But is this evidence-based? It’s unclear whether the schedule is uniquely difficult – or whether England believe it is because of their cultural echo chamber.”

So despite talking about how much they play, England look short of matches. They look fit but also tired and scrambled. In conclusion: “Bazball has transformed English cricket. It has rehabilitated confidence, restored identity and created a liberated environment. But the final 15% – tactical adaptability, challenge, accountability, perceptual development, value clarity and diversity of thought – is the difference between being inspiring and being world class.”

That does sound about right, doesn’t it? Or at least a more reasoned response to the sense of a team built as a monument to a single idea. For now England are probably right to take some time in Noosa, to relax and regroup and follow the only path they really have open to them at this stage. The motto of their chosen resort is “plan, play, explore”. Just don’t expect this regime to do much more than the play part.