Harry Brook's Dismissal On Day Four
It was textbook Bazball
There are several theories about Harry Brook’s dismissal, judging by the commentary. One commentator saw it as a yorker from Akash Deep. It wasn’t. It was a half-volley on middle-and-leg. Kumar Sangakkara described it as “arrogance” on commentary. His extended point is available here. Essentially, his view is that Brook batting on off-stump opens up a lot of opportunities for the fast bowlers. This is true. But in the Bazball view of the world, it also opens up the leg-side to Harry Brook (and Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett). It’s something a lot of great players have done in their times. Inzamam-ul-Haq, Tendulkar, Ponting, all tended to play into the leg side from the fourth stump once they were set. There are fewer fielders there.
But Brook does something else. He premeditates. There are balls which he plays on their merits - on their line and length. And then there are balls on which he picks his spot before the ball is bowled. This is evident in how much he moves even before the ball is bowled. In the case of the two ramps against Akashdeep in the 3rd innings at Lord’s, Brook had moved across his stumps before the ball was released. In the case of three other boundaries - the square-cut, the on-drive and the lofted off-drive, Brook the line and length.
For his dismissal, he premeditated again. But it went wrong. It’s tempting to think that he misjudged the length. But that would be to miss the point. He committed to the shot even before the ball was released. He was going to hit that ball into the leg-side. Among the many options available to him - front-foot-pull, the slog-sweep, the normal sweep, the ramp, the flick, depending on where the ball ended up. Another option would be that he’d miss the ball. That’s what happened.
The point though, is that Brook took the exact same chance on the balls which he ramped for four and the ball which got him out. His action in each case was identical, and it was decided before the ball was released.
Does a player of Brook’s stroke-making ability need to pre-meditate? That’s a question of policy. Bazball gives him the license to pre-meditate (just as India give Rishabh Pant the license to do what he likes). There are benefits to playing like Brook. It forces the fielding side to put fielders where they would rather not. It forces the bowler to worry about whether or not the batter is premeditating. When the batter is premeditating, bowling at the stumps is the usual strategy (that way, if the batter misses, he’s out). But bowling at the stumps is often too straight (and too full) if the batter ends up not pre-meditating.
Whatever it might be, Brook’s approach is not driven by arrogance. Its driven by a estimation of risks which Sangakkara’s generation of accumulators would consider to be imprudent. But this is essentially only basic theory underlying Bazball - that traditional, Test match batters have tended to be inefficient about risks, and that cultivating a broader range of attacking shots and playing them more often will produce not only quicker runs, but more runs. It’s a good theory, judging by the evidence so far, even if, it brings dismissals like Brook or Duckett’s regularly.
Good insight. I think England’s approach is widely misunderstood as mindless aggression, but as you say it’s more about reappraising the relationship between risk and reward.
I believe the article is very well-articulated and provides valuable insight into how modern cricketers perceive the game. That said, I’d like to make a point: while I’m perfectly fine with lap shots or scoop shots—even when they’re premeditated—attempting a premeditated cross-batted sweep against a bowler delivering at 135 kmph borders on arrogance, if not outright crosses the line.