Dan Lawrence will never make an opening bat. He does not have the technique or the patience. Around off stump and outside off stump his bat is too far away from his body and that makes him vulnerable to new-ball movement. He is not a good judge of what to leave and what to play and for an opener that is so important. On his legs he is more comfortable but even when the ball is straight he is working across the line instead of playing straight back to the bowler.
Before his second innings at the Oval he had scored 85 runs in five innings so he tried another way. He attacked and made an entertaining 35 off 35 balls. It is obvious to anyone with cricket nous that he is better suited down the order where he can play shots to an older ball. But I am not convinced he will ever make it at Test level unless he tightens up his defence, plays straighter and has better judgment around off stump. A lot to work on there.
Brook charismatic but impatient
Harry Brook has had a rapid rise. In full flow there is a touch of Kevin Pietersen as he improvises with effortless timing and power. Just like Pietersen, he has charisma. But while Brook has been plundering runs, teams will have been searching for ways to get him out. Because of video analysis, teams are studying every dismissal and in future more and more bowlers are going to bowl wide at fourth and fifth stump to test his patience. Sri Lanka are the latest to wait for him to get himself out.
In the first innings at the Oval you could see he was getting frustrated and did not like being unable to score. Frustration got to him and he slapped one to cover. If the team directive is to get after the bowling and put bat to ball it goes against instructions to keep leaving wide balls, yet he is going to have to think on his feet and adapt.
Root had a period buying into the team ethos of attack and trying out some T20 shots but, after a few silly dismissals and much criticism, he cut them out. Now he plays himself in, rotates the strike by pushing and placing the ball for ones and twos. He only hits the bad balls for boundaries. Simple, basic batting, no frills, and then once set later in his innings he picks up the tempo. What is curious is if Root can adapt his batting then why can’t the others do the same, or is Root exempt from Bazball because he is too important to drop?
England lost at the Oval because they gifted wickets to Sri Lanka with some careless, overconfident batting. Once the team get it into their heads to attack, they are like lemmings falling over a cliff. They cannot stop so there are going to be occasional Test defeats that should have been wins.
When they do lose it is usually their own fault with batsmen being gung ho. Their hubris gets in the way of common sense; it is the gambler’s curse.
It is such a distant memory how bad England were at the end of Joe Root’s time as captain. Players were at a low ebb and Root looked defeated and deflated. Test match losses were the norm, wins were in short supply.
Brendon McCullum deserves lots of praise for turning our cricket around, no matter how you like to see your cricket played. Yes, Ben Stokes as captain played a big part, too, but initially it was McCullum who freed up the players’ minds and told them to go out and express themselves and above all enjoy playing cricket.
All that has been brilliant. He has asked them to bat in a mirror image of himself - take the bowlers on, attack them, impose yourself, think positive. He is on record as saying he only thinks his glass is half-full. He has always been a talented gambler. That means when luck has gone with him he has played the most amazing innings.
Risk-takers get found out eventually
But every gambler knows his good luck cannot last for ever and somewhere around the corner will be some low points. McCullum has had some spectacular failures to go with his high points and he has always accepted that as part of his make-up.
When he was appointed coach, some of his New Zealand team-mates said we should hold on to our hats because it would be an interesting ride. And they were right.
I don’t think he will change his thinking and I don’t believe he will ask any of the England batsmen to bat differently.
That is why we have top-order batsmen going after the new ball as soon as they get to the middle. When the England batsmen are successful it is thrilling to watch and it does put the pressure back on the new-ball bowlers. The scoreboard races and England supporters are on the edge of their seats.
Going after the new ball every time means there will be a price to pay on some occasions and, when things go wrong, the failures will be spectacular. The team have bought into the Bazball culture and, like all gamblers, they trot out the standard phrase “that’s the way we play”.
If your boss and captain insist on the batsmen attacking the bowling then you do it or you may be dropped. It stems from the top.
Duckett is no Viv Richards
Ben Duckett is a perfect example of the McCullum style. When he gets runs it is rat-a-tat-tat, a shot every ball. There are great shots interspersed with slogs, pulls and sweeps. Other times he gets himself out with daft shots that you cannot believe he has tried. He attempts to play like a left-handed Viv Richards dismissing bowlers to all parts of the ground. Viv was special, Duckett isn’t.
I believe Duckett is a good batsman but his batting borders on overconfidence with a touch of arrogance. If he could stop pressing the self-destruct button he would score a lot more runs. I am not suggesting play defensive, just be sensible.